HC1028-14-R-0004-0001.doc

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

The following have been modified:

ADDENDUM C - SOO

Defense Commissary Agency (DeCA) Enterprise Business Solution (EBS)

STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES (SOO)

March 13, 2014

1.0. Purpose

The purpose of this SOO is to specify DeCA’s requirements for a commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) enterprise business solution (EBS). The EBS is a modernization of DeCA’s resale business operations including all processes associated with:

· vendor/supplier portal;

· contracting, cataloging, pricing, and promotions (CCPP);

· planogramming;

· ordering, receiving, and inventory management;

· omni-channel point-of-sale (POS) software and customer relationship management (CRM) to include gift cards, loyalty marketing, and digital coupons;

· financial information module (FIM) to interface with external Department of Defense (DoD), government, and commercial systems;

· loss prevention (LP);

· signage; and a

· warehouse management system (WMS).

With the retail grocery industry as a model, DeCA has concluded that it can use COTS software to support EBS and modernize its aging, obsolete, and disparate resale business systems and achieve the goals identified in its strategic plan.

DeCA requires a fully integrated grocery specific retail business suite that performs all supply chain functions necessary to operate and manage a large retail grocery business. The solution will consist of a tightly interconnected suite of application programs, subsystems, or modules that share a common operational data store and graphic user interface. All modules of the proposed business suite have been successfully integrated, tested, and deployed to interoperate in a commercial grocery environment. The suite will have logical modules that can be implemented and deployed in phases or increments yet still retain the integrated characteristics of the entire suite. Data used in one module will be easily shared with other modules through a common operational data store and without the use of complex proprietary interfaces. User interfaces will be consistent from one module to another.

Modules will perform supply chain functions in accordance with retail grocery industry standards with no or minimal customization and standard configuration. Customization is defined as specific and unique source code programming changes to achieve the desired functionality. Configuration is defined as flipping “software switches” or selecting standard defined options in the software to achieve the desired functionality through the user interface.

This SOO establishes top-level objectives of the EBS contract initiative and provides background information and performance parameters essential to the acquisition. The SOO is intended to provide maximum flexibility to offerors in developing cost-effective solutions and innovative approaches to meet program objectives. This SOO is furnished in lieu of a government-written Performance Work Statement (PWS). A PWS must be developed and submitted by all offerors addressing the requirements contained within the Request for Proposal. The SOO will not become part of the resultant contract, but will be replaced by the contractor’s proposal.

1.1. Background

DeCA’s mission is to provide an efficient and effective worldwide system of commissaries for the resale of groceries and household supplies at the lowest practical price (consistent with quality) to members of the military services, their families, and otherwise authorized customers, while maintaining high standards for quality facilities, products, and services. From its headquarters at Fort Lee, Virginia, DeCA operates 245 military commissaries worldwide. Of that total, 177 stores are located within the United States including Alaska and Hawaii, and 68 stores are located in 12 countries outside of the U.S. See Commissary Locations Attachment for list of current commissary locations. A military commissary is a government facility providing grocery products and other merchandise to authorized individuals. Commissaries are designed and operated similar to commercial supermarkets. DeCA’s goals are to provide a significant price savings when compared to commercial markets; to provide courteous and informative assistance to its customers; to offer a variety of items in quantities and of a quality level to satisfy customer demands; and to provide products in a clean, safe, and wholesome environment.

1.2. Scope

DeCA plans to incrementally deploy a COTS solution that has application programming interfaces (APIs) or Extensible Markup Language web services to support interfaces to current DeCA legacy systems and external DoD, government, and commercial systems. The EBS scope includes COTS hardware and software, technology refresh, and configuration management. The scope of this effort also includes business support such as training, deployment, help desk, maintenance, and business analytics tools. DeCA envisions deployment of EBS occurring in four distinct yet integrated increments:

· Increment 1

· CCPP (includes a vendor / supplier portal)

· Planogramming

· Increment 2

· Ordering

· Receiving (direct store delivery (DSD) and non-DSD)

· Inventory management

· Increment 3

· Omni-channel POS software

· CRM

· FIM

· LP

· Signage

· Increment 4

· WMS

The EBS integrated solution will incorporate commercial best practices in the grocery industry. Detailed requirements are included in the Functional & Technical Requirements Attachment.

2.0. Overall Program Objective

The overall objective of the EBS program is to implement a performance-based contractual mechanism that provides a fully integrated COTS supply chain solution for DeCA. DeCA will focus on an incrementally deployed COTS solution that achieves three primary goals:

1. incorporate industry best practices to support a 21st century supply chain model,

2. improve data to support analytics and business decisions, and

3. lower the total cost of ownership.

3.0. Performance Objectives

Six performance objectives support the three primary goals for EBS; three of which are system related and three are service related.

3.0.1 Deliver a 21st Century retail business solution

· Provide an integrated solution. Deliver an optimized, efficient, and cost-effective retail business solution that supports standard industry grocery operations, adheres to industry and technical standards, is commercially proven, and reflects the current best practices for the grocery industry. An effective system will capture all functional requirement outlined in the EBS performance specification with no or minimal customization by fiscal year 2020.

· Deploy capabilities incrementally. EBS will be deployed in four fully separable increments as outlined in section 1.2. Scope. EBS must be capable of interfacing with current DeCA legacy applications that will continue in production in the near term including the Common Business-Oriented Language based DeCA Interactive Business System, which includes item management, pricing, promotions, computer assisted ordering, DSD, electronic data interchange, and warehouse management; Enterprise Data Warehouse (EDW); POS software; financial systems; and several web-based systems. EBS must also interface to the Global Data Synchronization Network and other contractor data exchanges. An effective deployment for the first increment will be completed in less than 1-year from contract award and will provide no disruption of service to DeCA during the deployment. As approval is granted for deployment of each subsequent increment, the timeframe for completion will be in no more than 1-year from issuance of the respective increment’s delivery order.

· Meet security mandates and protect key data. Comply with DoD and DeCA technical requirements and standards. An effective system will successfully achieve accreditation through the DoD Certification and Accreditation Process.

· Ensure Net-Ready compliance. Provide a technical infrastructure (including hardware, software, data management, networking components, and security) for the EBS solution to reside within the DeCA business system architecture. See the Technical Library located at http://www.commissaries.com/ebs for additional background information. An effective system will be net ready by satisfying 100% of the interfaces, services, policy enforcement controls, data correctness, availability, and processing requirements designated as enterprise level or critical in DeCA’s integrated business architecture.

3.0.2 Improve business functionality

· Provide operational efficiencies. Provide industry standard metrics to show operational efficiencies or improvements in DeCA’s business operations as a result of implementing EBS and track the systems performance. A cost effective system will show a return on investment for the key business metrics proposed.

· Achieve data accuracy and integrity. Allow the electronic sharing of information vertically across increments and horizontally between stores, headquarters, and all customer touch points via a single integrated architecture engine. To eliminate current manual processes, an effective system will ensure 100% accuracy of sales and financial data as well as enable the exchange of data, selectively or on a schedule, with DeCA’s EDW.

· Support business decisions. Provide business intelligence across all EBS increments via built-in templates that allow DeCA to make accurate, informed decisions in meeting the needs of the customer. An effective decision support system built around a common operational data store will allow DeCA to provide the right product, at the right time, the right place, and the right price.

3.0.3 Keep pace with grocery technology

· Provide a service oriented architecture. Use an open systems architecture that allows flexible interfacing between components and systems from various manufacturers. An effective system will fully conform to the standards of the Association of Retail Technology Standards and the Uniform Code Council standards.

· Optimize use of cloud services as appropriate. Use cloud services, where appropriate, to better position DeCA for changes in the grocery environment, to reduce cost and to improve operational efficiency.

· Maintain an updated system through release and configuration management. Keep DeCA’s EBS system up-to-date with the latest software releases and provide a forum for DeCA to influence future changes. Maintain DeCA’s baseline configuration and incorporate DeCA customizations into future releases. An effective release management plan will provide DeCA software releases at no additional cost or pose special conditions for providing general availability to DeCA.

· Provide integration services. Provide integration services as required based on emerging technology and industry best practices

· Provide a technology refresh of EBS that maintains commercial retail grocery industry parity. .

3.0.4 Provide superior customer support

· Achieve a high level of system availability. Provide an optimized maintenance plan to support continuous operations of EBS throughout the contract period of performance. To ensure storewide availability to process customer sales, an effective system will have threshold of 98% system availability (during store business hours) and an objective of 99.9%.

· Provide world-wide help desk support. Provide an integrated help desk plan that provides DeCA with a single touch point to answer all EBS related issues on a 24x7 basis. The EBS contractor will establish service level agreements with the POS hardware contractor once the EBS POS software is deployed, and will become the single point of contact for all EBS and POS issues. An effective help desk plan will outline call center metrics such as speed to answer, first call resolution, proper identification and routing of the issue to the appropriate technical point of contact (i.e. POS hardware issues to the POS contractor), and time to resolve.

· Provide training support pre and post deployment. Ensure training is provided for each increment of EBS installed and subsequent training is provided with each release as appropriate. An effective training plan will ensure that the transition from the legacy system to the new EBS capability will occur without disruption to the business.

3.0.5 Ensure continuous availability of effective technical support services

· Provide delivery services. Provide hardware, software, and support services for all stores including new or renovated stores.

· Provide effective test management. Provide a cost effective, repeatable methodology to test all maintenance releases before introduction into the DeCA production environment. An effective test plan and methodology will ensure successful deployment of releases and will have no adverse effect on the production environment.

3.0.6 Become a trusted business partner

· Provide effective program management. Provide comprehensive program management by experienced and highly qualified key personnel, resulting in effective and unabated communication, response time, procedural standardization, and resolution of problematic areas.

· Provide effective organizational change management. Provide comprehensive change management through the use of a proven and structured methodology to create a climate for change enabling the agency to ensure successful implementation and modernized business processes.

· Actively monitor program risk. Identify and track all risks to the program that affects cost, schedule and performance. An effective risk management plan, will categorize all risks, identify the probability of occurrence and impact and outline the mitigation plan or plan to resolve.

· Incorporate effective communication. Initiate and maintain a professional, results-oriented partnership, which includes a timely feedback mechanism to provide user and customer feedback. An effective communications plan will outline all reviews, updates, activities necessary to implement each increment and monitor contract performance and key issues, as they arise, during the period of performance.

· Lower total cost of ownership. Evaluate the systems total cost of ownership before approval to implement the next increment of capability. The contractor will identify opportunities for cost reduction to realize a share in savings through value engineering proposals.

· Monitor and track all performance metrics. Propose an effective Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP). An effective QASP will capture all performance objectives and sub-elements, and propose period and method of evaluation.

4.0. Period of Performance

The period of performance is one, 5-year base period, and five, 1-year option periods.

5.0. Deliverables

The Data Item Descriptions Attachment details the DIDs that offerors must provide to include high level requirements for content and format. The following table identifies the timeframes for DID submissions.

x

x

x

x

*Monthly for first five years then quarterly for duration of contract

Standard Distribution: The transmittal letter will be delivered to the Defense Information Technology Contracting Organization at the following email address: lisa.o.cravens.civ@mail.mil and kimberly.m.hampel.civ@mail.mil, or the current contract specialist or contracting officer. One electronic copy will be delivered to DeCA at the following e-mail address: jon.wahlberg@deca.mil.

6.0. Constraints

The contractor will comply with all DeCA and DoD security requirements included in the EBS Technical Library located at https://www.commissaries.com/ebs.

7.0 Section 508 Information

a. Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794d) requires Federal agencies acquiring Electronic and Information Technology (EIT) to ensure that Federal employees with disabilities have access to and use of information and data that is comparable to the access and use by Federal employees who are not individuals with disabilities.

b. All EIT procured under this contract/order must meet the following 36 CFR 1194 accessibility standards. The full text of the accessibility standards is available at: http://www.accessboard.gov/sec508/508standards.htm

Technical Standards

FORMCHECKBOX

1194.21 - Software Applications and Operating Systems

FORMCHECKBOX

1194.22 - Web Based Intranet and Internet Information and Applications

FORMCHECKBOX

1194.23 - Telecommunications Products

FORMCHECKBOX

1194.24 - Video and Multimedia Products

FORMCHECKBOX

1194.25 - Self-Contained, Closed Products

FORMCHECKBOX

1194.26 - Desktop and Portable Computers

FORMCHECKBOX

1194.41 - Information, Documentation and Support

Functional Performance Criteria is the minimally acceptable standards to ensure Section 508 compliance. This block should is checked to ensure that the minimally acceptable EIT is proposed.

Functional Performance Criteria

FORMCHECKBOX

1194.31 - Functional Performance Criteria

c. The standards do not require the installation of specific accessibility-related software or the attachment of an assistive technology device(s), but merely require that the EIT be compatible with such software and device(s) so that it can be made accessible if so required in the future.

d. Contractors may propose products or services that result in substantially equivalent or greater access to and use by individuals with disabilities; this is known as equivalent facilitation.

ADDENDUM L

SECTION L

L.1. USE OF NON-GOVERNMENT ADVISORS/EVALUATORS

L.1.1. Offerors are advised that the following contractors may participate as non-Government advisors in the evaluation of proposals.

Chellam Manickam, Addx

Mark Nobles, Addx/LMI

Kelly Clements, Addx

Bill Hand, Addx/LMI

L.1.2. The above listed non-Government advisors will be authorized access to only those portions of the proposal data and discussion items that are necessary to enable them to provide specific advice on specialized matters or on particular problems. The non-Government advisors will not be allowed to determine strengths and weaknesses, establish initial or final assessments of risks, or actually rate or rank offerors’ proposals. The non-Government advisor will not take part in discussions. The non-Government advisors will be required to sign non-disclosure/conflict of interest documents prior to carrying out their responsibilities. Offeror’s objection to the disclosure of information to these non-Government advisors shall be provided in writing to the Contracting Officer before the date set for receipt of proposals. The written objection shall include a detailed statement for the basis for the objection.

L.1.3. Non-Government Source Selection Software. Decision Point source selection software developed by ManTech may be utilized during the proposal evaluation process.

L.2. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS.

L.2.1. 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 RFP and must be submitted in accordance with these instructions. The offeror shall be compliant with the requirements as stated in the Statement of Objectives and throughout the RFP.

L.2.2. The government reserves the right to provide a red (unacceptable) rating for any proposal that does not comply with these proposal preparation instructions.

L.2.3. 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.

L.2.4. Elaborate brochures or documentation, binding, detailed art work, or other embellishments are unnecessary and are not desired.

L.2.5. The proposal acceptance period is specified in Standard Form (SF) 1449 of the solicitation. The offeror shall make a clear statement in Volume VI – Contract Documentation that the proposal is valid through this date.

L.2.6. 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.

L.3. GENERAL INFORMATION.

L.3.1. Point of Contact. The Contracting Officer and Contract Specialist assigned to the DeCA EBS effort are the only points of contact for this procurement. Address any questions or concerns you may have to the Contracting Officer and the Contracting Specialist via email at Lisa.O.Cravens.civ@mail.mil or Kimberly.M.Hampel.civ@mail.mil. Questions are due no later than 10:00 AM, Central Time, on Tuesday April 15, 2014. Questions provided after the due date/time may not be answered.

L.3.2. Competitive Range Determination. Careful consideration shall be given to the overall standing of all offerors based on the initial evaluation. Only those offerors who have submitted the most highly rated proposals shall be included in the competitive range. However, in accordance with FAR Part 15.306(c)(2), offerors are advised that the competitive range may be further reduced for purposes of efficiency.

L.3.3. Debriefings.

L.3.3.1. The Contracting Officer 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 SubPart 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.

L.3.3.2. The Contracting Officer will notify unsuccessful offerors in the competitive range of the source selection decision in accordance with FAR SubPart 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 SubPart 15.505 or 15.506, as applicable.

L.3.4 Discrepancies.

L.3.4.1. If an offeror believes that the requirements in these instructions contain an error, omission, or are otherwise unsound, the offeror shall immediately notify the contracting officer in writing with supporting rationale as well as the remedies the offeror is asking the CO to consider as related to the omission or error.

L.3.4.2. The government may award without discussions. Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best approach/terms for technical, management, actual/sample task orders, past performance, and price. In accordance with FAR 15.306, if the government awards without discussions, the offerors may be given the opportunity to clarify certain aspects of proposals (e.g., the relevance of an offeror’s past performance information and adverse past performance information to which the offer has not previously had an opportunity to respond) or to resolve minor or clerical errors.

L.3.5. Communications. Exchanges of source selection information between government and offerors will be controlled by the contracting officer. Email may be used to transmit such information to offerors only if the email can be sent and received encrypted and includes “RFP HC1028-14-R-0004 – Source Selection Information – See FAR Parts 2.101 & 3.104” in the subject line. Email Lisa.O.Cravens.civ@mail.mil and/or Kimberly.M.Hampel.civ@mail.mil. Otherwise, source selection information will be transmitted via the U.S. Postal Service or other carrier (e.g., FedEx, UPS, etc) and mailed to the following address:

Defense Information Systems Agency

Procurement Directorate (DITCO – Scott)

Attn: Ms. Kimberly Hampel

Contracting Specialist

PL8321

2300 East Drive

Scott Air Force Base, Illinois 62225-5406

Reference: RFP HC1028-14-R-0004

L.4. ORGANIZATION/NUMBER OF COPIES/PAGE LIMITS.

L.4.1. The offeror shall prepare the proposal as set forth in the Proposal Organization Table below. The titles and contents of the volumes shall be defined in this table, all of which shall be within the required page limits and within the number of copies specified in the below table. The contents of each proposal volume are described in Section L, paragraph L.5 – Instructions for Preparation of Proposal Content as noted in the table below.

Proposal Organization

L.4.2. 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; page limitations may be placed on responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs). The specified page limits for EN responses will be identified in the letter forwarding the ENs to the offerors. Each page within a volume shall be counted as one page. Exception: Title/cover pages, table of contents, glossaries, compliance and cross-reference matrix tables, risk matrix, and blank pages shall not be counted.

L.4.3. Page Size and Format.

L.4.3.1. 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 typed with single spacing between each line. Except for the reproduced sections of the solicitation document, the font type/text size shall be Times New Roman, no smaller than 12-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 the ENs.

L.4.3.2. Page Numbering. The offeror shall use a standard page numbering system to facilitate proposal references. Number consecutive pages within parts. Consecutive page numbering within parts is referred, e.g., Page I-2-5, indicates Volume I, Part 2, page 5. Charts, graphs, and other insert materials shall be page-numbered as part of the page numbering system.

L.4.3.3 Legible tables, charts, graphs, 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 11x17 inches in size. Foldout pages shall fold entirely within the volume and count as a single page. If using two sides (front/back) of the foldout page, the front page will count as one page and the back page will count as another page. Foldout pages may only be used for large tables, charts, graphs, diagrams, and schematics, not for pages of the text. For tables, charts, graphs, and figures, the text shall be no smaller than 8-point.

L.4.3.4. Indexing. Each volume shall contain a more detailed table of contents to delineate the subparagraphs within that volume. Table of contents do not count against the page limitations for their respective volumes. Tab indexing shall be used to identify parts.

L.4.3.5. Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms. Each column shall contain a glossary of all abbreviations and acronyms used, and with an explanation of each. Glossaries of Abbreviations and Acronyms do not count against the page limitations for their respective volumes.

L.4.3.6 Cross-Referencing.

L.4.3.6.1 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 form the proposal. Cross referencing within a proposal volume is permitted where its use would conserve space without impairing clarity.

L.4.3.6.2 The offeror shall complete a cross reference matrix by indicating RFP, SOW/SOO/PWS, and/or specification paragraph number, the corresponding proposal paragraph in that part which address the referenced item.

L.4.3.7. Electronic Offers.

L.4.3.7.1. The offer shall prepare a “readme” file which describes the organization and lay of its softcopy submission.

L.4.3.7.2 All proposal volumes shall be submitted in Adobe Acrobat Portable Document Finder (PDF) Version 9.x. The font type shall be Times New Roman, no smaller than 12-point. The text margins shall be no less than ¾ inch. Note: there shall be no page markings with restrictive legend prohibiting the copying and pasting of text for the Government to use specific to this acquisition. Traceability matrixes will use hyperlinks to the maximum extent possible.

L.4.3.7.3 Offerors shall use the Acrobat Link feature for cross-references that are electronically linked, and linked files must be contained in the same directory. The Acrobat Bookmark feature may also be used for document navigation; however, use of Acrobat Notes feature is prohibited. Offerors shall use the “Optimize” feature of Adobe Acrobat to decrease file size and prepare them for viewing on the internet. Offerors are encouraged to limit file size to 2.5 MB in downloading proposals over the Internet.

L.4.3.7.4 If necessary, separate the electronic files of the original proposal at logical breakpoints using the table of contents as a guide. Each file must be autonomous and complete.

L.4.3.8 Virus Check. Offerors shall perform a virus check prior to proposal submittal. Virus checking will be conducted as the source selection site prior to the beginning of the evaluation.

L.4.3.9 Use of the software and procedures described in this part will reduce the amount of time and effort needed by the government to receive and install proposals into an electronic evaluation system and will help ensure that proposals are suitable for reading electronically. Information regarding electronic products listed herein should not be constructed as government endorsement for such products.

L.4.3.10. Efforts by the government to clarify or expedite installation of electronic proposal submissions, in accordance with FAR Part 15.207(c) will not be considered discussions.

L.4.4. The government may access the softcopy versions of the offeror’s proposal using the DecisionPoint source selection tool provided by ManTech AcqCenter (http://www.acqcenter.com). An electronic submission which cannot be accessible from Decision Point will not be considered.

L.4.5. Cost and Pricing Information. No cost or pricing information of any kind shall be included in any volume except Volume V, Cost/Price Proposal. The Government reserves the right, but is not obligated, to exclude any offeror that includes cost or pricing information of any kind in any volume except Volume V, Cost/Price Proposal.

L.4.6. Proposal Submission. In order to respond to this solicitation, the offeror must email their proposal to Kimberly.M.Hampel.civ@mail.mil and Lisa.O.Cravens.civ@mail.mil by the response due date shown on the SF1449, “Solicitation, Offer, and Award”. The time specified on the SF 1449 is Central Standard Time (CST). Any proposal, modification, or revision that is received at the designated government email after the exact time specified for receipt is “late” and will be subject to FAR Part 15.208(b) and subparagraphs thereto. In accordance with FAR 52.215-1, Instruction to Offerors-Competitive Acquisition, the offeror’s proposal submission will be considered complete when all volumes are received. Offerors shall request a delivery and read receipt to verify receipt of proposal.

L.4.7. Classified Information. Offerors are not expected to submit classified information.

L.4.8. Acceptance of Proposals. The government reserves the following rights:

L.4.8.1 To consider only those proposals that are submitted in accordance with all technical requirements stated or referenced in the solicitation, and that demonstrate an understanding of and the ability to perform the government’s requirements;

L.4.8.2 To provide a red (unacceptable) rating for as unacceptable those proposals that delete or alter technical requirements of the solicitation; and

L.4.8.3 To provide a red (unacceptable) rating for as unacceptable those proposals that do not comply with the instructions set forth in Section L.

L.5. INSTRUCTIONS FOR PREPARATION OF PROPOSAL CONTENT.

L.5.1. Volume I – Executive Summary. In the executive summary, the offeror shall provide the following information:

L.5.1.1 Narrative Summary. Explain and provide the offeror’s overall approach and supporting rationale for providing the Defense Commissary (DeCA) Enterprise Business Solution (EBS) requirements to include addressing significant risks and highlighting any key or unique features, excluding cost/price. Define direct lines of control, responsibility, functional relationships, and authority among the organizational elements, including proposed teaming partners, joint ventures, and/or significant subcontractor arrangements. Material presented in the Executive Summary shall not be considered towards meeting the requirements for any portions of other volumes of the proposal.

L.5.1.2 Table of Contents. Include a Master Table of Contents for the entire proposal to include Lists of Tables, Figures, and/or Drawings.

L.5.2. Volume II – Technical Approach. Offerors shall submit their technical approach as Volume II of the written proposals. All of the requirements specified in the solicitation are mandatory. The technical proposal shall not include price information, classified information, or “For Official Use Only” information.

L.5.3. Volume III – Management Approach. Offerors shall submit their management approach as Volume III of the written proposals. All of the requirements specified in the solicitation are mandatory. The management proposal shall not include price information, classified information, or “For Official Use Only” information.

L.5.3.1 General. The technical and management volumes should be specific and complete. Legibility, clarity, and coherence are very important. Your responses will be evaluated against the technical and management subfactors as defined in Section M2 – 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. Do not merely reiterate the objectives or reformulate the requirements specified in the solicitation.

L.5.3.2 Format and Specific Content.

L.5.3.2.1. Technical. In the Technical volume, address your proposed approach to meeting or exceeding the minimum performance or capability requirements of each technical subfactors as well as the risks in your proposed approach in terms of technical/performance, cost and/or schedule.

L.5.3.2.2. Technical Risk. Address technical 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 Section M, Paragraph M.3.3 entitled “Factor 1 – Technical” and subparagraphs thereto, and the Technical Risk Ratings Table. 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 risk mitigation.

L.5.3.2.2.1. Volume II Organization – Technical. (Evaluation Factor 1). The Technical Volume shall be organized to the following general outline:

a) Part A – Subfactor One - Deliver a 21st Century Retail Business Solution.

b) Part B – Subfactor Two – Improve Business Functionality

c) Part C – Subfactor Three – Keep Pace with Grocery Technology

d) Risk Matrix

L.5.4.2.2. Volume II consists of the following parts.

a) Part A – Subfactor 1 – Deliver a 21st Century Retail Business Solution. The offeror shall provide a clear, concise description of how the offeror plans to provide a fully integrated and operational commercial-off-the shelf implementation of the EBS in a grocery environment as described in the Statement of Objectives (SOO) Section 3.01.

b) Part B– Subfactor 2 – Improve Business Functionality. The offeror shall provide a clear, concise description of how the offeror plans to provide business functionality as identified in SOO Section 3.0.2.

c) Part C – Subfactor 3 – Keep Pace with Grocery Technology. The offeror shall provide a clear, concise description of how the offeror plans to meet the technical requirements identified in SOO Section 3.0.3 to provide release management and integration services that maintain industry parity.

d). Part D – Risk Matrix. The offeror shall provide a matrix of the technical risks identified, risk rating, work-around/risk mitigation, etc. The risk matrix does not count against the page limitations of Volume II.

L.5.3.2.3. Management In the Management volume, address your proposed approach to meeting or exceeding the minimum performance or capability requirements of each management subfactors as well as the risks in your proposed approach in terms of technical/performance, cost and/or schedule.

L.5.3.2.4. Management Risk. Address 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 Section M, entitled “Factor 2 – Management” and subparagraphs; thereto and the Management Risk Ratings Table. 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 risk mitigation.

L.5.3.2.4.1. Volume III Organization – Management. (Evaluation Factor 2). The Management Volume shall be organized to the following general outline:

a) Part A – Subfactor One – Provide Customer Support

b) Part B – Subfactor Two – Busines Partnership

c) Risk Matrix

L.5.3.2.4.2. Volume III consists of the following parts.

a) Part A – Subfactor 1 – Provide Customer Support. The offeror shall provide a clear, concise description of how the offeror plans to provide customer support as identified in SOO Section 3.0.4.

b) Part B – Subfactor 2 – Business Partnerships. The offeror shall provide a clear, concise description of how the offeror plans to manage the program to include, but not limited to program management, change management, and deployment approach in accordance with SOO Section 3.0.6..

c) Part C – Risk Matrix. The offeror shall provide a matrix of the technical risks identified, risk rating, work-around/risk mitigation, etc. The risk matrix does not count against the page limitations of Volume III.

L.5.4. Volume IV. Past Performance (Evaluation Factor 3)

L.5.4.1 Volume IV Organization. The Past Performance volume shall be organized according to the following general outline:

a. Part A – Summary Page describing the role of the offeror and each teaming partner, joint venture partner, and/or significant subcontractor that the offeror is required to provide Past Performance Questionnaire.

b. Part B – Subcontractor/Teaming Partner Consent Letters executed by each teaming partner, joint venture partner and/or significant subcontractor authorizing the release of past performance information so the offeror can respond to such information. Part B will be excluded from the page counts for the Past Performance Volume.

c. Part C – Client Authorization Letters for each identified effort for a commercial customer authorizing release to the government of requested information on the offeror’s performance. Part C will be excluded from the page counts for the Past Performance Volume.

d. Part D – Past Performance Questionnaire Responses.

e. Part E – Organizational Structure Change History, if applicable. Part E will be excluded from the page counts for the Past Performance Volume.

L.5.4.2. Each offeror shall submit a past performance volume, containing past performance information in accordance with format in Section J. This information is required for the offeror and all teaming partners, joint venture partners, and/or subcontracts: (1) who the offeror expects to perform twenty (20%) or more of the services on the proposed effort based on the total proposed price or (2) that the offeror is proposing to perform aspects of the effort that the offeror considers critical to the overall successful performance of the proposed effort. Offerors are cautioned that the government will use data provided by each offeror in this volume and data obtained from other sources in the evaluation of past performance.

L.5.4.3. Along with the information required in the above paragraph, the offeror shall submit a consent letter executed by each teaming partner, joint venture partner, and/or significant subcontractor, authorizing release of adverse past performance information to the offeror so the offeror can respond to such information.

L.5.4.4. For each identified effort performed by a non-government commercial customer, the offeror shall also submit a client authorization letter, authorizing release to the government of the requested information on the offeror’s performance.

L.5.4.5 Recent and Relevant Contracts. The offeror shall submit information in accordance with Section J.5 Past Performance Questionnaire, on three recent contracts, within the past five years from date of solicitation that the prime offeror considers most relevant in demonstrating its ability to perform the proposed effort. The information submitted shall reference the offeror’s past performance, rather than the past performance of the offeror’s teaming partners, joint ventures, and/or significant subcontracts. The government considers a significant offeror and/or teaming partner to be a company who provides 20% or more of the support required, and/or a company who provides a critical portion of the effort required and/or influences the results of performance. Include rationale supporting your assertion of relevance. For a description of the characteristics or aspects the government will consider in determining recency and relevance, Section M, Factor 3 – Past Performance and subparagraphs thereto.

L.5.4.5.1. In addition, the offeror shall include information on two recent contracts performed by each teaming partner, joint venture, and/or significant subcontractor that you consider most relevant in demonstrating their ability to perform the proposed effort. Please see the maximum limitations set forth in subparagraph b below.

L.5.4.5.2. Recent contracts are considered to be efforts that the prime contractor and its teaming partners, joint ventures, or significant subcontractors have been performed within the past five years prior to issuance of the solicitation, or for ongoing efforts, must have been in place at least nine months before the proposal due date.

L.5.4.5.3 Specific Content. The offeror shall explain what aspects of the contracts are deemed to be relevant to the propose effort and to what aspects of the proposed effort they relate. This may include a discussion of efforts accomplished by the offeror to resolve problems encountered on prior contracts as well as past efforts to identify and manage program risk. Merely having problems does not automatically equate to a limited or no confidence rating, since the problems encountered may have been on a more complex program, or an offeror may have subsequently demonstrated the ability to overcome the problems encountered. The offeror is required to clearly demonstrate management actions employed in overcoming problems and the effects of those actions in terms of improvements achieved or problems rectified. This may allow the offeror to be considered a higher confidence candidate. For example, submittal of quality performance indicators or other management indicators that clearly support that an offeror has overcome past problems is required. Categorize the relevant information into the specific technical/management subfactors and cost/price factor used to evaluate the proposal.

L.5.4.5.4 Organizational Structure Change History. Many companies have acquired, been acquired by, or otherwise merged with other companies, and/or reorganized their divisions, business groups, subsidiary companies, etc. In many cases, these changes have taken place during the time of performance of relevant past efforts or between conclusion of recent past efforts and this source selection. As a result, it is sometimes difficult to determine what past performance is relevant to this procurement. To facilitate this relevancy determination, include in this proposal volume a “roadmap” describing all such changes in the organization of your company. A pamphlet or other commercial document describing such reorganizations may suffice. As part of this explanation, show how these changes impact the relevance of any efforts you identify for past performance evaluation/performance confidence assessment. Since the government intends to consider past performance information provided by other sources as well as that provided by the offerors, your “roadmap” should be both specifically applicable to the efforts you identify, and general enough to apply to the efforts on which the government receives information from other sources.

L.5.4.5.5 Questionnaires. The offeror shall provide the past performance questionnaire and cover letter found in Section J to each of the customer points of contact identified for each of the relevant past performance efforts. In order to expedite the assessment process, the offeror may complete Sections 1, 2, and 3 of the past performance questionnaire for the convenience of the POC. The offeror shall not, however, complete any other section of the past performance questionnaire. Once the questionnaires are completed by the POCs, the information contained therein shall be considered sensitive and shall not be released to the offeror. Early submission of the past performance questionnaire is encouraged. Questionnaires shall be sent directly to the Contracting Officer and Specialist no earlier than 15 days after release of the Final DeCA EBS RFP and no later than the proposal due date. Electronic submission is preferred.

L.5.5 Volume V – Cost/Price Proposal.

L.5.5.1 General Instructions.

L.5.5.1.1. Cost/Price Reasonableness. This section is to assist you in submitting other than cost or pricing data that is required to evaluate the reasonableness of your proposed price. Compliance with these requirements is mandatory and failure to comply may result in an unacceptable rating of your proposal. The offeror’s cost/price proposal will be evaluated, using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404 in order to determine if it is reasonable and complete. The government will determine the reasonableness of the overall price using one or more of the analysis techniques as defined in FAR 15.404. For a price to be complete all solicitation requirements must be priced, figures correctly calculated and costs presented in the government-provided pricing model. The Government reserves the right, but is not obligated, to review prices to determine whether they are so low that they reflect a lack of technical understanding, and to reject a proposal for offering unrealistically low prices. Additionally, unbalanced pricing proposes an unacceptable risk to the government and may be reason to provide an unacceptable rating for an offeror’s proposal. Offerors who have submitted cost/price proposal that has received an evaluation as non-acceptable, may not be considered for award.

L.5.5.1.2. Cost/Price Information. Information beyond that required by this instruction shall not be submitted, unless you consider it…