HC1028-12-R-0044-0001.doc

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION C - DESCRIPTIONS AND SPECIFICATIONS

The following have been modified:

PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT

QASP

SECTION J - LIST OF DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS AND OTHER ATTACHMENTS

The following have been added by full text:

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

The following have been modified:

SECTION L

Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors or Respondents

1.0 Budget/Funding Information

For consideration in developing your proposal, the program/budget funding is as follows:

Base Year:

CLIN 0001 - $779,314.00

CLIN 0002 - $5,000.00

Option Year:

CLIN 1001 - $780,419.00

CLIN 1002 - $3,895.00

2.0 General Instructions

(a) This section of the Information to Offerors provides general guidance for preparing proposals as well as specific instructions on the format and content of the proposal. The offeror's proposal must include all data and information requested by the Request For Proposal (RFP) and must be submitted in accordance with these instructions. The offer shall be compliant with the requirements as stated in the Performance Work Statement (PWS) and Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP). Non-conformance with the instructions provided in this Information to Offerors may result in an unfavorable proposal evaluation.

(b) The proposal shall be clear, concise, and shall include sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiating the validity of stated claims. The proposal should not simply rephrase or restate the Government's requirements but rather shall provide convincing rationale to address how the offeror intends to meet these requirements. Offerors shall assume that the Government has no prior knowledge of their facilities and experience and will base its evaluation on the information presented in the offeror's proposal.

(c) Elaborate brochures or documentation, binding, detailed art work, internet hyperlinks, or other embellishments are unnecessary and are not desired.

(d) The proposal acceptance period is specified in Section L of the solicitation. The offeror shall make a clear statement in Section A of the proposal documentation volume that the proposal is valid through this date.

(e) In accordance with FAR Subpart 4.8 (Government Contract Files), the Government will retain one copy of all unsuccessful proposals. Unless the offeror requests otherwise, the Government will destroy extra copies of such unsuccessful proposals.

2.1 General Information

2.1.1. Point of Contact

The Contracting Specialist (CS) is the point of contact for this procurement. Any questions or concerns must be provided in writing and sent to the following:

trevor.whitaker@disa.mil

2.1.2. Debriefings

The Contracting Officer (CO) will promptly notify offerors of any decision to exclude them from the competitive range; whereupon, they may request and receive a debriefing in accordance with FAR 15.505. Offerors excluded from the competitive range may request a pre-award debriefing or they may choose to wait until after the source selection decision to request a post-award debriefing. However, offerors excluded from the competitive range are entitled to no more than one debriefing for each proposal. The CO will notify unsuccessful offerors in the competitive range of the source selection decision in accordance with FAR 15.506. 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.

2.1.3. 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 CS in writing with supporting rationale as well as the remedies the offeror is asking the CS to consider as related to the omission or error. The offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion. This reservation includes matters of additional or substitute pages of the initial proposal.

2.1.4. Electronic Reference Documents

All referenced documents for this solicitation are available on the Federal Business Opportunities (FedBizOpps) website at http://www.fedbizopps.gov. Potential offerors are encouraged to subscribe for real-time e-mail notifications when information has been posted to the website for this solicitation.

2.1.5. Oral Presentations

Not Applicable

2.1.6 Communications

Exchanges of source selection information between Government and offerors will be controlled by the CO/CS. Email may be used to transmit such information to offerors only if the email can be sent and received encrypted and includes “Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 & 3.104” in the Subject line.

2.2 Organization/Number of Copies/Page Limits

The offeror shall prepare the proposal as set forth in the Proposal Organization Table (Table 2.2 below). The titles and contents of the volumes shall be as defined in this table, all of which shall be within the required page limits and with the number of copies as specified in Table 2.2. The contents of each proposal volume are described in the subsequent sections of this “Information to Offerors and Instructions for Proposal Preparation” paragraph as noted in the table below.

Table 2.2 - Proposal Organization

2.2.1 Page Limitations

Page limitations shall be treated as maximums. If exceeded, the excess pages will not be read or considered in the evaluation of the proposal and excess paper copies will be returned to the offeror as soon as practicable. 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. Each page shall be counted except the following: cover pages, tables of contents,and resumes.

2.2.1.1. Page Size and Format

(a) A page is defined as each face of a sheet of paper containing information. When both sides of a sheet display printed material, it shall be counted as two pages. Page size shall be 8.5 x 11 inches. Pages shall be single spaced. Except for the reproduced sections of the solicitation document, the text size shall be no less than 11 point. Tracking, kerning, and leading values shall not be changed from the default values of the word processing or page layout software. Use at least 1 inch margins on the top and bottom and ¾-inch side margins. Pages shall be numbered sequentially by volume. These page format restrictions shall apply to responses to Evaluation Notices (EN).

(b) Legible tables, charts, graphs and figures shall be used wherever practical to depict organizations, systems and layout, implementation schedules, plans, etc. These displays shall be uncomplicated, legible, and shall not exceed 8.5 by 11 inches in size. For tables, charts, graphs and figures, the text shall be no smaller than 9 point. These limitations shall apply to both electronic and hard copy proposals.

2.2.2 Cost or Pricing Information

All pricing information shall be addressed ONLY in the Price Volume.

2.2.3 Cross-Referencing

To the greatest extent possible, each volume shall be written on a stand‑alone basis so that its contents may be evaluated with a minimum of cross referencing to other volumes of the proposal. Information required for proposal evaluation which is not found in its designated volume will be assumed to have been omitted from the proposal.

2.3 Electronic Offers

This procurement will be conducted entirely by electronic means. The Government will entertain questions on this procurement until 8:00AM CST, Friday, 18 May 2012. All questions must be submitted in writing to trevor.whitaker@disa.mil (before the date and time indicated). Oral communications ARE NOT acceptable. Responses to questions posed will be provided to all by 2:00PM CST, Friday, 25 May 2012, or sooner if possible. Questions submitted after this due date and time may or may not be answered. The offeror shall submit volumes I through V in electronic format via email to trevor.whitaker@disa.mil by 2:00 pm central, Monday, 11 June 2012. If files are compressed, the necessary decompression program must be included. All information submitted must be presented in software applications which are readable by DISA systems (generally Microsoft Office, such as Word and Excel, and Portable Document Format (PDF) files are acceptable).

2.4 Distribution

The "original" proposal shall be addressed to the CS and emailed to trevor.whitaker@disa.mil.

3.0 Volume I ‑ Executive Summary

In the executive summary volume, the offeror shall provide the following information:

3.1 Narrative Summary

The narrative summary of the entire proposal should be concise, to include addressing the significant risks, and highlighting any key or unique features, excluding cost/price. The salient features should tie in with Section M evaluation factors/subfactors. Any summary material presented here shall not be considered as meeting the requirements for any portions of other volumes of the proposal.

3.2 Table of Contents

Include a master table of contents of the entire proposal.

4.0 Volume II – Technical/Management Volume

4.1 General

The Technical/Management Volume should be specific and complete. Legibility, clarity, and coherence are very important. Your responses will be evaluated against the technical/management subfactors defined in Section M, Evaluation Factors for Award. Using the instructions provided below, provide as specifically as possible the actual methodology you would use for accomplishing/satisfying these subfactors. All the requirements specified in the solicitation are mandatory. By your proposal submission, you are representing that your firm will perform all the requirements specified in the solicitation. It is not necessary or desirable for you to tell us so in your proposal. Do not merely reiterate the objectives or reformulate the requirements specified in the solicitation.

4.2 Format and Specific Content

4.2.1 Technical/Management

In the Technical/Management volume, address your proposed approach to meeting or exceeding the minimum performance or capability requirements of each technical/management subfactor, as well as the risks in your proposed approach in terms of technical/performance, cost, and/or schedule.

4.2.1.1 Technical/Management Risk

Address technical/management risk by identifying those aspects of the proposal you consider to have the potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost, poor performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and/or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. Classify each risk in accordance with the DoD Source Selection Procedures. Provide the rationale for each risk and its rating, including quantitative estimates of the impact on cost, schedule, and performance. Describe the impact of each identified risk in terms of its potential to interfere with or prevent the successful accomplishment of other contract requirements (e.g., PWS or specification requirements), whether or not those requirements are identified as subfactors. Propose a realistic "work‑around" or risk mitigators for identified risks that will eliminate or reduce risk to an acceptable level. Identify and classify any new risks introduced by such risk mitigation.

5.0 Volume III - Past Performance

5.1 General

Each offeror shall submit a past performance volume with its proposal, including up to three contracts within the past three years that are similar in nature, complexity, and size to this requirement keeping in mind that more relevant data will be rated higher. The page limit for the past performance proposals is 2 pages per reference. For each contract listed, include the following information:

a. Name of Project

b. Brief Description of project

c. Contract or project number

d. Contract Type

e. Client/Customer Point of Contact (name, address, phone number, e-mail address)

f. Dollar/Ceiling value of the contract/project

g. Period of performance of the contract/project

h. Relevance of contract/project to requirements of this anticipated effort

i. Total number and magnitude of task orders (dollar value, duration, etc) awarded to you under the contract

j. Total number (delineated by business size) of subcontractors/team members managed by you under the contract.

Along with the information required in this paragraph, the offeror shall submit a consent letter executed by each subcontractor, teaming partner, and/or joint venture partner, authorizing release of past performance information to the offeror so the offeror can respond to such information.

6.0 Volume IV - Cost/Price

6.1 General Instructions

(a) The cost/price volume must include a full breakout of the proposed prices. The breakout must include the labor categories, labor hours, and fully burdened labor rates for all contract periods. The anticipated start date is 10 September 2012. Travel is not requested in the RFP; however, the Government will issue a Cost Reimbursable Travel CLIN with an amount of $5,000.00 for the base year and $3,895.00 for option year 1. Travel will be invoiced and paid on a cost reimbursable basis in accordance with FAR 31.205-46.

(b) The contractor shall propose a fixed price payment plan in accordance with section 14. g. Invoicing plan of the PWS. The contractor will be authorized to invoice monthly for all approved travel costs incurred and approved by the COR.

6.1.1 Cost/Price Reasonableness

Based on adequate price competition, the CO does not anticipate a requirement for Certified Cost or Pricing Data. However, offerors may be required to submit information other than cost or pricing data in accordance with FAR 52.215-20. This information will be required by the CO as deemed necessary. Compliance with these requirements is mandatory and failure to comply may result in rejection of your proposal. Note that unrealistically low or high proposed costs or prices, initially or subsequently, may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition either on the basis that the offeror does not understand the requirement or has submitted an unrealistic proposal. Additionally, unbalanced pricing poses an unacceptable risk to the Government and may be a reason to reject an offeror’s proposal. Offers should be sufficiently detailed to demonstrate their reasonableness. The burden of proof for credibility of proposed costs/prices rests with the offeror.

6.1.2 Cost/Price Information

Information beyond that required by this instruction shall not be submitted, unless you consider it essential to document or support your cost/price position. All information relating to the proposed price, including all required supporting documentation, must be included in the section of the proposal designated as the Cost/Price volume. Under no circumstances shall this information and documentation be included elsewhere in the proposal.

7.0 Volume V ‑ Contract Documentation

7.1 General

The purpose of this volume is to provide information to the Government for preparing the contract document and supporting file. This includes:

7.1.1 Section A - Solicitation/Contract Form

Completion of block 15a, 15b and signature and date for blocks 16, 17b and 18c of the SF33. Signature by the offeror on the SF33 constitutes an offer, which the Government may accept.

7.1.2 Section B - Supplies or Services and Costs/Prices

Completed pricing information in Section B of the RFP.

7.1.3 Section J - List of Documents, Exhibits and Other Attachments Completion of blocks 6a, 6b, and 6c of the DD Form 254.

7.1.4 Section K - Representations, Certifications, and other Statements of Offerors

Completed representations, certifications, acknowledgments and statements.

7.2 Exceptions to Solicitation Requirements

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. Each exception shall be specifically related to each paragraph and/or specific part of the solicitation to which the exception is taken. Provide rationale in support of the exception and fully explain its impact, if any, on the performance, schedule, cost, and specific requirements of the solicitation.

7.3 Other Information Required

7.3.1 Authorized Offeror Personnel

Provide the name, title, and telephone number of the company/division point of contact regarding decisions made with respect to your proposal and who can obligate your company contractually. Also, identify those individuals authorized to negotiate with the Government.

7.3.2 Government Offices

Provide the mailing address, telephone and fax numbers and facility codes for the Government Paying Office.

7.3.3 Company/Division Address, Identifying Codes, and Applicable Designations

Provide company/division's street address, county and facility code; CAGE code; DUNS code; TIN; size of business (large or small); and labor surplus area designation. This same information must be provided if the work for this contract will be performed at any other locations. List all locations where work is to be performed and indicate whether such facility is a division, affiliate, or subcontractor, and the percentage of work to be performed at each location.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

SECTION M

Evaluation Factors for Award

M001 SOURCE SELECTION

a. Basis for Contract Award

This is a best value source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and the DISA Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DARS). These regulations are available electronically at http://farsite.hill.af.mil. The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of technical/management, past performance, and cost/price. Contracts may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors to represent the best value to the Government. This may result in an award to a higher rated and/or higher priced offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors.

b. Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award one contract for DISA Enterprise Engineering (EE); however, the Government reserves the right to make no award at all. The offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion.

c. Rejection of Unrealistic Offers

The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unrealistic in terms of program commitments, contract terms and conditions, or unrealistically high or low in cost when compared to Government estimates, such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program.

d. Correction Potential of Proposals

The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential" of any deficiency or weakness. The judgment of such "correction potential" is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of an offeror's proposal does not meet the Government's requirements and is not considered correctable, the offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range.

M002 EVALUATION FACTORS

a. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

(1) The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal: Award will be made to the offeror proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below. The technical/management factor is more important than the past performance factor.(equal, or specify and list in descending order of importance) Within the technical/management factor, all subfactors are equal in importance. All non-cost evaluation factors, when combined, are significantly more important than the cost/price factor.

Factor 1: Technical/Management

Subfactor 1: (Technical) The Contractor demonstrates a comprehensive capability to conduct outreach and initiate access to other interested or participating entities, including DoD level partners, as outlined in the performance work statement.

Subfactor 2: (Technical) The Contractor demonstrates a complete understating of attribute services applied at the local, COI and enterprise level to include the major elements, required functions and interactions and internal and external interfaces. The Contractor also demonstrates familiarity with prior and ongoing work within the DoD and knowledge of how directory services can be used to provide user identity and attribute information for authorization.

Subfactor 3: (Technical) The Contractor demonstrates a complete understanding of the concept of policy based accces control and the role of policy decision points, policy enforcement points and digital policy stores the required functions, interactions potential and technical issues. The Contractor also demonstrates familiarity with prior and ongoing policy based access control work within the DoD.

Subfactor 4: (Management) The Contractor demonstrates a comprehensive management approach that ensures fully trained top-quality personnel are provided to meet all requirements of the performance work statement. The contractor proposal provides the optimum mix of labor categories, labor hours, and to meet the requirements of the performance work statement.

Subfactor 5: (Management) The Contractor management approach addresses how the contractor will track and mange all resources to support the efforts outlined in the performance work statement.

Factor 2: Past Performance

The government will evaluate the offeror’s recent and relevant experience performing contracts similar in size, scope and complexity to the tasks outlined in the PWS, as well as their ability to stay on schedule and within contract cost/price.

Factor 3: Cost/Price Factor

b. Technical/Management Factor

The technical/management evaluation provides for two distinct but related assessments: the technical/management rating and the technical/management risk rating.

(1) Technical/Management Rating. The technical/management rating provides an assessment of the offeror’s capability to satisfy the Government’s requirements. Each technical/management subfactor will receive one of the color ratings described in the DOD Source Selection Procedures, paragraph 3.1.2.2.1, Table 2 – Technical Ratings, excerpted below.

They focus on the strengths, deficiencies, and weaknesses of the offeror's proposal. The color rating depicts how well the offeror’s proposal meets the technical/management subfactor requirements. Subfactor ratings shall not be rolled up into an overall color rating for the technical/management factor.

Table 2. Technical Ratings

(2) Technical/Management Risk Rating. The Technical/Management Risk evaluation focuses on the weaknesses associated with an offeror's proposed approach and includes an assessment of the potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

The technical/management subfactors will receive one of the risk ratings described in the DOD Source Selection Procedures, paragraph 3.1.2.2.2, Table 3 – Technical Risk Ratings, excerpted below. They focus on the risks, i.e., weaknesses and significant weaknesses, of the offeror’s proposed approach to each of the technical/management subfactors. For any weakness identified, the evaluation shall address the offeror's proposed mitigation and why that mitigation approach is or is not manageable.

Table 3. Technical Risk Ratings

c. Past Performance Factor

The past performance evaluation factor assesses the degree of confidence the Government has in an offeror’s ability to supply products and services that meet users’ needs, based on a demonstrated record of performance. Performance confidence is assessed at the overall past performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the offeror’s recent past performance.

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.

(1) Recency Assessment

An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past 3 years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated. If any part of the performance falls within the above timeframe, the contract in its entirety may be evaluated for past performance.

(2) Relevancy Assessment

The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained. For each recent past performance reference reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed for the technical/management factor and cost/price factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this procurement may be considered). Consideration will be given to contracts with similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming. A relevancy determination of the offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The past performance information forms and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance. The Government will use the following degrees of relevancy when assessing recent, relevant contracts (DoD Source Selection Procedures, paragraph 3.1.3.1, Table 4):

Table 4. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

(3) Performance Quality Assessment (How well the contractor performed on the contract.)

The Government will consider the performance quality of recent and relevant efforts. For each recent/relevant past performance reference reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed for the technical/management factor and cost/price factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this procurement may be considered). The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of the past performance questionnaire responses, PPIRS information, interviews with Government customers and fee determining officials, and if applicable, commercial clients. It may include interviews with DCMA officials or other sources known to the Government. Pursuant to FAR 15.305(a)(2)(v), the assessment will consider the extent to which the offeror’s evaluated past performance demonstrates compliance with subcontracting plan goals for small disadvantaged business (SDB) concerns, monetary targets for SDB participation, and notifications submitted under FAR 52.219-25, Small Disadvantaged Business Participation Program—Disadvantaged Status and Reporting. Pursuant to DFARS 215.305(a)(2), the assessment will also consider the extent to which the offeror’s evaluated past performance demonstrates compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns and FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problems, mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated.

The Government will use the following quality ratings when assessing quality of relevant contracts (DISA Supplemental Source Selection Procedures, paragraph 3.1.3.1 (S-90), Table 4.5):

Table 4.5 Past Performance Quality Assessment

EXCEPTIONAL (E)/BLUE

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

VERY GOOD (VG)/PURPLE

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)/GREEN

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)/YELLOW

During the contract period, contractor performance does not or did not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being 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)/RED

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.

(4) Assigning Performance Confidence Assessment. As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating. The resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the past performance factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance. Offerors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive an "Unknown Confidence" rating for the past performance factor.

More recent and relevant performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than a less recent or relevant effort. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than an "Unknown Confidence" rating. Likewise, a more relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance.

The past performance factor will receive one of the performance confidence assessments described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, paragraph 3.1.3.3, Table 5 – Performance Confidence Assessments, excerpted below.

TABLE 5- PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

NO

CONFIDENCE

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

UNKNOWN CONFIDENCE

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

d. Cost or Price Factor

(1) The offeror’s cost/price proposal will be evaluated for award purposes, based upon the total price proposed for basic requirements (basic award) and all options.

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

(3) Travel and Other Direct Costs (ODCs) will not be included in the Total Evaluated Price. Offerors are not required to propose ODCs and Travel as these will be funded as Cost Reimbursable (CR) items.

(4) Cost/price proposals will be evaluated for reasonableness and completeness based on the proposal analysis techniques contained in FAR15.404.

a. For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. Normally, price reasonableness is established using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404. In addition, the offeror’s price proposal will be reviewed for unbalanced pricing in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g).

b. Completeness will be evaluated by assessing the responsiveness of the offeror in providing price data for all solicitation requirements, calculating all figures correctly and presenting all prices in a clear and useful format. Failure to comply with this requirement may render a proposal as non-responsive, and thereby subject to rejection.

e. Discussions

If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision.

M003 SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS

Offerors are required to meet 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. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale.

(End of Summary of Changes)

QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN (QASP)

For

Dynamic Access Control Framework

1. Contract or Task Order Title: Dynamic Access Control Framework

2. Work Requirements:

· Task 1 – Task Management

· Task 2 – Technical Outreach and Coordination

· Task 3 – Access Control Policy Enforcement Point (PEP)/Policy Decision Point (PDP) Architecture

· Task 4 – Domain Attribute Service

· Task 5 – Policy Store/Service (Option Year)

· Task 6 - Directory Services for Authorization (Option Year)

3. Primary Method of Surveillance:

Periodic Inspection is scheduled for all task items (Task 1-6) as identified in the schedule column of the performance standards table (Section 5)

Customer Input may supplement the surveillance method for Task 2, where customer is defined as the entities targeted for outreach and coordination.

4. Scope of Performance:

The work will involve review and analysis of relevant existing and emerging policy, implementations, architectures, concept papers and requirements. The work will also involve synthesis and technical analysis of candidate technical approaches to potentially include modeling and simulation and the development of recommended dynamic access control architectures and implementation guidance. Review of existing literature, coordination and technical exchange with other related efforts within the DoD and Federal Government, and application of subject matters expertise will be required.

5. Performance Standards:

Task Area

Performance Standard

Acceptable Quality Level (AQL)

Method of Surveillance

6.1.1

Deliverable(s): Task Management Plan (TMP), Revised TMP

TMP (and Revised TMPs, as applicable) are delivered in a timely manner 100% of the time with 95% completeness, professional soundness and accuracy.

Inspection of reports

6.1.2

Deliverables: Monthly Status Reports (MSR)

MSRs are delivered in a timely manner 100% of the time with 95% completeness, professional soundness and accuracy.

Inspection of reports

6.1.3

Deliverable: Technical Interchange Meeting (TIM) Report

TIM report is delivered in a timely manner 100% of the time with 95% completeness, professional soundness and accuracy.

Inspection of reports

6.1.4

Deliverables: Weekly Meeting Reports (WMR)

WMRs are delivered in a timely manner 100% of the time with 95% completeness, professional soundness and accuracy.

Inspection of reports

6.2

Deliverables: Technical Exchange Meeting (TEM) Reports, Technical Briefs

TEM reports and Technical Briefs are delivered in a timely manner 100% of the time and help the stakeholders move toward a more interoperable environment.

Inspection of reports

6.3

Deliverable: Technical Report -- PDP/PEP Architecture Artifact

The document PDP/PEP Architecture Artifact is delivered in a timely manner 100% of the time and help the stakeholders move toward a more interoperable environment.

Inspection of reports

6.3

Deliverable: Technical Report – PDP/PEP Recommended Design Pattern

The document PDP/PEP Recommended Design Pattern is delivered in a timely manner 100% of the time and help the stakeholders move toward a more interoperable environment.

Inspection of reports

6.4.1

Deliverable: Technical Report – Attribute Service Technical Analysis

The document PDP/PEP Recommended Design Pattern is delivered in a timely manner 100% of the time and help the stakeholders move toward a more interoperable environment.

Inspection of reports

6.4.2

Deliverable: Technical Report – Attribute Service Architecture Artifact

The document Attribute Service Technical Analysis is delivered in a timely manner 100% of the time and help the stakeholders move toward a more interoperable environment.

Inspection of reports

6.4.3

Deliverable: Technical Report – Enterprise Identity Attribute Service Interface GTP

The document Enterprise Identity Attribute Service Interface GTP is delivered in a timely manner 100% of the time and help the stakeholders move toward a more interoperable environment.

Inspection of reports

6.5.1

Deliverable: Technical Report – Policy Store/Service Engineering Analysis

The document Policy Store/Service Engineering Analysis is delivered in a timely manner 100% of the time and help the stakeholders move toward a more interoperable environment.

Inspection of reports

6.5.2

Deliverable: Technical Report – Policy Store/Service Architecture Artifact

The document Policy Store/Service Architecture Artifact is delivered in a timely manner 100% of the time and help the stakeholders move toward a more interoperable environment.

Inspection of reports

6.5.3

Deliverable: Technical Report – Recommended Policy Store/Service Requirements

The document Recommended Policy Store/Service Requirements is delivered in a timely manner 100% of the time and help the stakeholders move toward a more interoperable environment.

Inspection of reports

6.6.1

Deliverable: Technical Report – Access Control Metadata Schema Analysis

The document Access Control Metadata Schema Analysis is delivered in a timely manner 100% of the time and help the stakeholders move toward a more interoperable environment.

Inspection of reports

6.6.2

Deliverable: Technical Report – Access Control Metadata Discovery Architecture Artifact

The document Access Control Metadata Discovery Architecture Artifact is delivered in a timely manner 100% of the time and help the stakeholders move toward a more interoperable environment.

Inspection of reports

6.6.3

Deliverable: Technical Report – Access Control Metadata Schema and Discovery Architecture Requirements

The document Access Control Metadata Schema and Discovery Architecture Requirements is delivered in a timely manner 100% of the time and help the stakeholders move toward a more interoperable environment.

Inspection of reports

6. Acceptable Quality Level (AQL):

The ACL for this project is acceptance of the final deliverables for each of the tasks, each of which will be delivered after the Government has had an opportunity to comment on the draft deliverable.

7. Evaluation Method:

The Contracting Officer Representative (COR) will document the receipt of deliverables indentified in Section 5. The COR will perform a review of the draft deliverables and provide comments in a timely manner so as not to disrupt the delivery of the final deliverable for each of the tasks.

8. Incentives (Positive and/or Negative):

Both positive and negative performances, ratings shall be documented in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). In addition, the Government reserves the right to exercise the option year.

PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT (PWS)

as of 24 May 2012

Contract Number:

To be provided at award

1. Contracting Officer Representative (COR)

a. Primary COR.

Name:

To be provided at award

Organization:

Department of Defense Activity

Address Code (DODAAC):

Address:

Phone Number:

E-Mail Address:

b. Alternate COR.

Name:

To be provided at award

Organization:

DODAAC:

Address:

Phone Number:

E-Mail Address:

2. Contract Title. DISA EWSE – Dynamic Access Control Framework

3. Background. The Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) Enterprise-Wide Systems Engineering (EWSE) has a principal mission to provide architectural, systems engineering, and analytical support for the End-to-End (E2E) interoperability standards and technical implementation guidance development for DISA, the Department of Defense Chief Information Officer (DoD CIO), and other Global Information Grid (GIG) stakeholders to ensure effective and functionally integrated capabilities across the GIG in support of DoD business, warfighter mission and intelligence requirements.

Specifically, the DoD CIO has identified Identity and Access management (IdAM) as the foundation for accessing future information services. The need for a consistent real time dynamic access control capability for DoD is identified as one of the DoD top Information Technology (IT) priorities. Multiple IdAM frameworks exist within the Federal government and DoD but have fragmented lexicons and interface definitions. There is a need for a synchronized frameworkwith a focus on architectures and implementation guides that define the common services and interfaces. These documents will facilitate the development and implementation of a DoD wide dynamic access control capability.

Prior work by the EWSE GIG Authentication and Access Control (GAAC) Integrated Product Team (IPT) started addressing the issue with a Dynamic Access Control Framework white paper that provided a recommended lexicon and ontology. These definitions provided a framework for organizing the access control issues and a basis for future work. The objective of this task is to leverage this and other prior work to further develop technical architecture artifacts and implementation guidance.

4. Objectives: The objective is to develop various architecture artifacts and implementation guides and to conduct the supporting engineering analyses. In some cases, implementation guidance may be formulated and submitted as formal guidance known as a GIG Technical Profile (GTP). The scope and primary focus of these products will be organized around various topics areas derived from the “Access Control Framework GTP” and other sources. These include:

1) Access Control Policy Enforcement Point (PEP) / Policy Decision Point (PDP) Architecture,

2) Domain Attribute Service,

3) Access Control Policy Store/Service,

4) Directory Services for Authorization.

The artifacts associated with these areas are intended to support the transition from the current, disparate “as-is” access control implementations towards a “to-be” converged enterprise service which provides service interfaces to support both communities of interest (COIs) as well as autonomous systems and domains. An additional objective is developing artifacts that facilitate dynamic access control transition and implementation. Among the cases to be supported is the transition from local access, such as a single COI, reliant on identity based access control (IBAC) or role based access control (RBAC) methods, towards access control using an enterprise level service using a combination of attribute based (ABAC) and policy based access control (PBAC) methods.

5. Scope. The work will involve review and analysis of relevant existing and emerging policy, implementations, architectures, concept papers and requirements. The work will also involve synthesis and technical analysis of candidate technical approaches to potentially include modeling and simulation and the development of recommended dynamic access control architectures and implementation guidance. Review of existing literature, coordination and technical exchange with other related efforts within the DoD and Federal Government, and application of subject matters expertise will be required.

6. Performance Requirements.

6.1 Task 1 - Management.

This task area is focused on providing program management support to the Government Task Lead. Program management support includes, but is not limited to various activities related to planning, executing, tracking and documenting the effort under this TO.

6.1.1 Subtask 1 – Task Management Plan

The contractor shall prepare and maintain a Task Management Plan (TMP) describing the technical approach, organizational resources and management controls, with a focus on tasks and deliverables, to be employed to meet the cost, performance and schedule requirements throughout task execution.

Deliverable: Task Management Plan

Revised Task Management Plan

6.1.2 Subtask 2 – Monthly Status Report

The contractor shall provide a Monthly Status Report (MSR) providing the results of quality assurance monitoring, progress/status reports, and program reviews.

Deliverable: Monthly Status Report

6.1.3 Subtask 3 – Technical Interchange Meeting

The contractor shall conduct a Technical Interchange Meeting (TIM) within 1 week after contract award to review requirements and the overall strategy for completing the work. The TIM is a one time kick-off meeting between the Contractor and Government. The contractor shall document this meeting and provide a report to the Government.

Deliverable: Technical Interchange Meeting (TIM) Report

6.1.4 Subtask 4 – Recurring Meetings

The contractor shall meet with the Government Task Lead on a weekly basis to discuss progress, present requests for assistance, and deal with…