FINAL_RFP_Attachment_1_HQ0034-18-R-0202.pdf

Attachment 1

RFP # HQ0034-18-R-0202

COMBINED SYNOPSIS/SOLICITATION FOR COMMERCIAL ITEMS

General Information

Document Type: Combined Synopsis/Solicitation

Solicitation Number: HQ0034-18-R-0202

Posted Date: 13-Jul-18

Original Response Date: 13-Aug-18

Current Response Date: 13-Aug-18

Classification Code: R -- Professional, Administrative, and Management Support Services

Set Aside: Small Business

NAICS Code: 541519 – Other Computer Related Services

Contracting Office Address

Washington Headquarters Services, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22350

Description

This is a combined synopsis/solicitation for commercial items prepared in accordance with the format in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 12.6, “Streamlined Procedures for

Evaluation and Solicitation for Commercial Items,” as supplemented with additional information included in this notice. This announcement constitutes the only solicitation; proposals are being requested and a written solicitation will not be issued. IDIQ Technical Factors 1 & 2 and Task

Order Technical Factor 1 will be evaluated in accordance with FAR subpart 12.602 “Streamlined

Evaluation of Offers”. IDIQ Technical Factor 3 – Past Performance and Task Order Factor 2 -

Price will be evaluated in accordance with FAR subparts 15.3 and 15.4, respectively.

This solicitation is a Request for Proposals (RFP). The solicitation document and incorporated provisions and clauses are those in effect through Federal Acquisition Circular 2005-99 and

DFARS change notice 20180601. Solicitation provisions and contract clauses that pertain to the

IDIQ contract(s) and task orders are contained in RFP Attachments 5 and 6, respectively. There is no assigned Defense Priorities and Allocations System (DPAS) rating for this requirement.

The associated North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) code for this procurement is 541519 – “Other Computer Related Services”, with a small business size standard of $27.5M. The following documents constitute the complete RFP solicitation and are hereby incorporated:

RFP Attachment 1_ HQ0034-18-R-0202

RFP Attachment 2_IDIQ PWS

RFP Attachment 3_Task Order PWS

RFP Attachment 4_Task Order Price; Microsoft Excel Spreadsheet

RFP Attachment 5_CLINs & IDIQ Provisions & Clauses

RFP Attachment 6_Task Order Provisions & Clauses

RFP Attachment 7_DD254

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

Section 1: General RFP Instructions

1. Offerors shall read this document in its entirety as it contains information and procedures regulating how Offerors will structure proposals in response to this solicitation.

2. In recognition of the Agency’s small business policies and goals, the DoD is restricting participation in this solicitation to Small Businesses registered under NAICS 541519 – “Other

Computer Related Services” with a size standard of $27.5M. A business is a small business concern if its annual receipts (i.e. total income), averaged over a 3 year period, and does not exceed $27.5M.

3. The Government anticipates awarding Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract(s), for Crowdsourced Vulnerability Discovery & Disclosure Services (CVDD) to each and all qualifying Offeror(s) as set forth in the “Evaluation for Award of IDIQ Contract and Task

Order” section below.

4. The Government anticipates awarding one (1) task order immediately after the IDIQ contract award(s) for the work described in RFP Attachment 3_Task Order PWS. The task orders will be issued to the Offeror whose proposal represents the best value to the Government, for the CVDD requirement, as set forth in the “Evaluation for Award of IDIQ Contract and Task

Order” section below. The Government may award the task order to other than the Offeror proposing the lowest price or achieving the highest adjectival rating. The Government will award additional task orders to meet the guaranteed minimum(s) for each IDIQ contract awarded.

5. The Government intends to compete task orders under an IDIQ contract vehicle. For all future task orders, the Government will provide all awardees a fair opportunity to be considered for each order. Each task order will be issued to accomplish a specific work segment or segments. Multiple task orders will likely be in progress simultaneously. Performing in this environment will require all contractors to coordinate their activities, with the Government, to ensure successful completion.

6. Each Offeror must submit a response to the solicitation, consistent with the instructions herein, to be considered for an award. Incomplete proposal submissions will not be evaluated and, therefore, will not be considered for an IDIQ contract or task order award. Submission of these items, as detailed below, will constitute the Offeror’s compliance with the terms and conditions of the RFP solicitation.

7. The Government intends to award the IDIQ contract(s) and task orders without discussions. Therefore, initial submissions should contain the Offeror’s best terms.

Notwithstanding its intent to award without discussions, the Government reserves the exclusive right to conduct discussions with Offerors, if it deems necessary, and to permit Offerors to revise their proposals. Unless expressly authorized by the RFP, any Offeror planning to take exception to a term or condition of the RFP should consult with the Contracting Officer (CO) in writing prior to submitting a proposal.

8. The Government will pay no expenses incurred by any Offeror for the preparation and submission of a proposal in response to this RFP.

9. Offerors shall use standard 8 ½ x 11” size paper with, at minimum, 3/4” margins on all sides. The entire written submission shall use Times New Roman or other plain font easily understandable and, at minimum, a 12 point font size for text and a 10 point font size for tables and graphics. All pages shall include page numbering. Any pages over the specific page limitations for each factor as outlined below may not be considered.

10. Submission and File Naming. Offerors shall submit their technical proposals, for consideration of IDIQ Contract(s)/Task Order award, as separate volumes of the total proposal package, as outlined above. All non-price information shall be organized by sections, relative to the evaluation factor structure, and be contained within Volume 1 – IDIQ Technical Proposal and Volume 2 – Task Order Technical Proposal. Offerors shall omit all pricing details from all technical proposal submissions. File attachments for Volumes 1 and 2 shall be named:

Volume 1 – IDIQ Technical_Company Name

Volume 2 – Task Order Technical_Company Name

Volume 3 –Pricing_Company Name

11. IDIQ Pricing shall not be submitted and will not be evaluated. Pricing information to be submitted is described below.

12. Questions. All questions regarding this RFP shall be addressed to Sonja Sims and

Kaitlin Lockett and sent to whs.mc-alex.ad.mbx.ssb-vendor-submissions@mail.mil no later than

July 18, 2018 at 2:00PM Eastern Time (ET). Answers to Offerors questions shall be compiled and provided to all Offerors via email. The Government reserves the right to not answer questions submitted after the deadline.

13. Proposal Due Date. Submission of Proposals in response to this RFP shall addressed to

Sonja Sims and Kaitlin Lockett and sent to whs.mc-alex.ad.mbx.ssb-vendor-submissions@mail.mil no later than August 13, 2018 at 12:00PM Eastern Time (ET).

The government will not consider the text of the emails, only the attachments. A single email cannot exceed 10 MBs. Files should be in Microsoft Word, Excel, or Adobe .PDF format; zip files are accepted.

Section 2: Proposal Instructions

1. Content and Format. Proposals shall consist of three (3) separate volumes and shall be organized as follows:

The IDIQ technical proposal shall consist of a comprehensive written proposal containing four (4) sections: Platform Compliance, Management Approach and Key Personnel, Technical Approach, and Past Performance. Proposal content organized under the section headers should be compiled regarding the technical proposal instructions and page limitations detailed below. Volume I for the IDIQ is broken down:

mailto:whs.mc-alex.ad.mbx.ssb-vendor-submissions@mail.mil

Section Header Description Page Count

Cover Letter Cover Letter 1 page

Platform

Compliance

IDIQ Compliance Total Count: 2 Pages

Technical Factor

IDIQ Management Approach & Key

Personnel

Total Count: 20 Pages

Key Personnel Resume: 4

Pages

Excluded from page count

(Table of Contents, Resumes)

Technical Factor

IDIQ Technical Approach Total Count: 20 Pages

Technical Factor

IDIQ Past Performance No page limit

The Task Order technical proposal shall consist of a comprehensive written proposal containing one (1) section: Technical Approach. Volume II for the Task Order is broken down as follows:

Section Header Description Page Count

Technical Factor

Task Order Technical Approach Total Count: 10 pages

The Price proposal (Volume III) shall consist of one (1) section: Task Order pricing and does not have a page limitation. Pricing data is prohibited in, and shall be omitted from, Volumes I & II.

2. Offerors are strongly encouraged to be succinct, clear, and concise in writing their proposal and adhering to the set page limitations. Bullet-sized or outline formats are welcomed where appropriate.

3. The technical proposals must contain the necessary and required information to enable the Government to evaluate the Offeror under the “Evaluation for Award of IDIQ

Contract and Task Orders” section below.

4. In the technical proposal Offerors are encouraged to use quantitative and graphical methods to portray facts through charts, lists, matrices, diagrams, tabulations, etc. These quantitative and graphical methods are included in the overall page limitation.

5. Each acronym used shall be spelled out in the text the first time it appears in each volume.

Section 3: Volume I Instructions

1. The following introductory information is required (cover letter format is acceptable) on the first page of Volume I of each Technical Proposal submitted:

RFP Number & Title, Name and address of Offeror, Name, telephone number & e-mail address of the main point-of-contact, Name of your Contract Administrator, Date of submission, Name, title, and signature of authorized representative, Offeror's DUNS number; and

Exceptions to RFP/Performance Work Statement (if applicable).

2. IDIQ Platform Compliance. The Offeror’s technical proposal must provide a clear and complete description of its platform and capabilities relative to the work in which it proposes to support including specific responses to the following. Platform compliance requirements are detailed in Section 6.10 of the IDIQ PWS.

Whether the proposed platform meets the requirements in Section 6.10 of the IDIQ

PWS.

Whether the Offeror owns and operates the proposed platform.

Whether the Offeror’s proposed platform is proprietary and available for public and commercial use. (describe the platform technology).

Whether the Offeror’s proposed platform is primarily used for crowdsourced vulnerability discovery and disclosure activities.

Whether the Offeror’s proposed platform has the required capabilities to:

Support and allow researchers to participate in challenges to report vulnerabilities, Triage Vulnerability Reports, and, Facilitate communications between the Government, triage personnel, and the researchers.

3. IDIQ Management Approach and Key Personnel.

Offerors are instructed to propose a Management Approach that details a sound process for managing researchers, conducting all engagements, ensuring appropriate coordination of researcher skillset to the type of work being performed, researcher recruitment efforts and maintaining communication with Government stakeholders.

Offerors are instructed to also propose a sound process for managing strategic communications to include conducting public relations, press inquiries, developing blogs and social media posts for recruitment, responding to press and Internet-based inquiries and, managing problematic researchers relative to FA2.

Offerors are also instructed to propose a Program Manager that satisfies the Key

Personnel requirements. Offerors shall propose a qualified individual, via resume, that reflects the requirements detailed in section 6.12 of the IDIQ PWS. Substantiating statements should be included to ensure that the Government can reasonably determine that the proposed resume experience is relative to the Government’s stipulated Key

Personnel requirements. In addition, resumes shall contain the following information:

Name;

Project assignment;

Name of firm with which associated;

Years of experience with current firm and other firms identified;

Education to include degree(s) type/specialization, Institution name;

Currency, quality and depth of experience in working on similar projects;

Confirmation of ability to meet security requirements of IDIQ PWS Section 7.2;

Experience and qualifications relevant to the contract; and

Location of the office to which this individual will be permanently assigned during the period of performance of the contract.

4. IDIQ Technical Approach.

Offerors are instructed to propose a Technical Approach to accomplishing work, detailed in RFP Attachment 2_ IDIQ PWS, that demonstrates complete understanding CVDD activities. Offerors are cautioned that a proposal’s failure to address aspects of FA2 under the IDIQ PWS’, will not meet the requirements of Technical Factor 2a.

Offerors are instructed to propose a sound process for conducting a full packet capture of researcher activities to enable auditability and continuous monitoring relative to FA2.

Offerors are instructed to propose a Triage Plan that includes a sound process for prioritizing vulnerability reports within 48 hours of receipt. The proposed Triage Plan must address the prioritization of vulnerabilities, by severity, for the Government remediation team and must leverage both manual and automated tools for triaging vulnerability reports. Offerors are cautioned that a proposal’s failure to completely address the above-mentioned aspects of the Triage Plan, will not receive a rating of

“Acceptable” or above.

5. IDIQ Past Performance.

Offerors are instructed to detail collective corporate experience in managing multiple

CVDD challenges simultaneously for large enterprise organization(s). For each project identified, Offerors shall briefly describe their Past Performance as it relates to the successful delivery of objectives outlined in the requirements, the successful delivery of

CVDD Processes, and customer satisfaction. Offerors should include details on performance that led to positive end results.

Offerors are encouraged to demonstrate its experience in providing services similar in size and scope to this procurement by identifying the most relevant projects completed or active during the past three (3) years; but in no event should include more than 5 references. The Government highly prefers that each Offeror have at least two years of relevant experience. The work identified may be where the Offeror performed as the prime contractor or performed under a teaming arrangement as a subcontractor.

Offerors are instructed to provide the following for all work cited:

Name of the entity for whom the services were provided (agency, firm, etc.);

Description of services provided, to include magnitude, scope and responsibilities;

Reference Point of Contact (POC) information, to include name, phone number, and email address, and

Period of Performance.

Note: Reference POC can only be used once and cannot be repeated to satisfy other evaluated areas of Technical Factor 3.

Section 4: Volume II Instructions

1. The Task Order technical proposal shall consist of a comprehensive written proposal containing one (1) Technical Approach section.

2. Offerors are instructed to propose a Technical Approach to accomplishing work, detailed in

RFP Attachment 3_ Task Order PWS, that demonstrates complete understanding of CVDD activities. Offerors are cautioned that a proposal’s failure to completely address all aspects of the

Task Order PWS will not meet the requirements.

Section 5: Volume III Instructions

1. Task Order Price. Pricing data shall contain only the information requested in this section and shall not be an extension of the technical proposal.

2. The Period of Performance for the initial task order will be three (3) months. Pricing data shall be submitted to cover the entire Period of Performance.3.

3. Using the format provided in RFP Attachment 6, Offerors are instructed to propose an overall Firm Fixed Price, for accomplishing the work detailed in the RFP Attachment 4_Task

Order PWS, and shall include its price build-up utilizing the table structure at the bottom of RFP

Attachment 4 – Task Order Price. Requested information includes proposing a fixed rate or price for bounty, platform service, background check, and DoD service fees commensurate with the Offeror’s assessment of work in the Task Order Price. Travel costs have been pre-populated in the price template. Offerors shall not propose separate travel fees. Additionally, for the bounties, Offerors are instructed to propose a standard rate structure matched to the commercial vulnerability severity schema, such as CVSS, market prices and prior Offeror experience.

4. Volume 3 price proposals, submitted by Offerors, must contain the requested price information. Omission of the requested price data will constitute an incomplete price submission, deemed non-compliant with the RFP requirements and unawardable under this solicitation.

5. Offerors can provide any substantiating price-related information it deems necessary.

Substantiating price-related information is optional and not a requirement.

EVALUATION FOR AWARD OF IDIQ CONTRACT AND TASK ORDER

Section 6: Basis for Award

1. The Government intends to make an award to all qualifying offerors under this solicitation.

Relative to this RFP, a qualifying offeror is determined to be a responsible source, submits a technically acceptable proposal that conforms to the requirements of this RFP, and the contracting officer has no reason to believe that the offeror would be likely to offer other than fair and reasonable pricing.

2. A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer’s specified expiration time, the

Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

Section 7: Evaluation Process IDIQ Contract

Phase 1: Compliance Factor (Pass/Fail)

The proposal will be reviewed to determine whether the prime Offeror has a verifiable customer platform. The platform will be evaluated based on the questions below. If this information cannot be verified in the proposal, the proposal will be deemed ineligible for award and no further evaluation will occur.

Does the Offeror own and operate a secure proprietary platform, for crowdsourced vulnerability discovery and disclosure activities, that allows researchers to participate in challenges to report vulnerabilities, allows for report triaging, allows for centralized communications between the government, triage personnel and the researchers, and that includes a secure portal and associated tools to enable audits capable of auditing and continuous monitoring of researcher activity? Does the platform comply with FA2 platform requirements in Section 6.10 of the IDIQ

PWS?

Note: Proposals that “Fail” Phase 1 will not be further evaluated.

Phase 2: Evaluation Factors

STEP 1: The Offeror’s Volume 1 technical proposal(s) will be evaluated under Technical Factor

1_Management Approach using the “Technical Capability Performance Evaluation Ratings and

Definitions” listed in Section 9 below.

STEP 2: If the Offeror’s Technical Factor 1_Management Approach Technical Rating is

“Acceptable” or higher, then the Offeror’s Technical Factor 2_Technical Approach will be evaluated using the Technical Capability Performance Evaluation Ratings.

STEP 3: If the Offeror’s Technical Factor 2_Technical Approach Technical Rating is

“Acceptable” or higher, then the Offeror’s Technical Factor 3_Past Performance will be evaluated using the Past Performance Evaluation Ratings.

STEP 4: If the Offeror’s Technical Factor 1_Management Approach, Technical Factor

2_Technical Approach is rated as “Marginal” or “Unacceptable” and/or Technical Factor 3_Past

Performance is rated as “No Confidence”, then an award would not be issued.

The Technical Factors for Management Approach, Technical Approach and Past Performance are of equal importance.

Section 8: Evaluation Process Task Order

STEP 1: The Offeror’s Technical Factor 1_Technical Approach will be evaluated using the

Technical Capability Performance Evaluation Ratings.

STEP 2: If the Offeror’s Technical Factor 1_Technical Approach Technical Rating is

“Acceptable” or higher, then the Offeror’s Factor 2_Task Order Price will be evaluated.

Note: If the Offeror’s Technical Factor 1_ Technical Approach is rated as “Marginal” or

“Unacceptable”, then Factor 2_Task Order Price will not be evaluated.

Task Order Technical Factor 1_Technical Capability is more important than Price. Factor

2_Price will become increasingly more important as Factor 1 becomes equal.

Section 9: Evaluation Factors

IDIQ

IDIQ Technical Factor 1 _ Management Approach and Key Personnel

Proposal submissions for this evaluated area shall demonstrate the Offeror’s ability to manage the team proposed and the ability to accomplish the requirements in the PWS. Specifically, the

Government will evaluate:

1a) The extent to which the Offeror’s proposed Management Approach details a sound process for managing researchers, conducting all engagements, ensuring coordination of researcher skillset to the work to be performed, researcher recruitment efforts, and conflict management.

1b) The extent to which the Offeror’s proposed Management Approach details a sound process for managing strategic communications to include conducting public relations, press inquiries, developing blogs and social media posts for recruitment, responding to press and Internet-based inquiries and, managing problematic researchers relative to FA2.

1c) The extent to which the Offeror’s proposed Management Approach details a sound process for maintaining communication with Government stakeholders.

1d) The extent to which the Offeror’s proposed Program Manager satisfies the Key Personnel requirements detailed in section 6.12 of the IDIQ PWS.

Receipt of a “Marginal” or “Unacceptable” rating for Technical Evaluation Factor 1 will render the proposal unawardable and the Offeror will be considered ineligible for award and not evaluated further.

IDIQ Technical Factor 2 _Technical Approach

The Technical Approach will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the Offeror demonstrates understanding of the Crowdsourced Vulnerability Discovery and Disclosure

Services requirements. Any proposed approach must reflect a demonstrated understanding of the requirements, and a sound, practical, and feasible method to accomplish all tasks, and proposes acceptable methods for ensuring the quality of deliverables.

Specifically, the Government will evaluate:

2a) The extent to which the Offeror’s proposed Technical Approach demonstrates complete understanding of crowdsourced vulnerability discovery and disclosure activities.

2b) The extent to which the Offeror’s proposed Technical Approach details a sound process for conducting auditing and continuous monitoring of researcher activities relative to

FA2.

2c) The extent to which the Offeror’s proposed Triage Plan details a sound process for prioritizing vulnerability reports, by severity, for the Government remediation team within 48 business hours of receipt.

Receipt of a “Marginal” or “Unacceptable” rating for Technical Evaluation Factor 2 will render the proposal unawardable and the Offeror will be considered ineligible for award and not evaluated further.

IDIQ Technical Factor 3_Past Performance

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror demonstrates recent (within the last three (3) years), relevant (as defined below), and quality performance of past work identified. The information provided should include the ability to provide the requested services of the same magnitude and complexity of this RFP.

Specifically, the Government will consider:

3a) The extent to which the Offeror’s Past Performance details its collective corporate experience in managing multiple Crowdsourced Vulnerability Discovery and Disclosure challenges simultaneously for large enterprise organizations.

3b) The extent to which the Offeror’s Past Performance details its collective corporate experience in performing work relative to FA2.

Besides the information requested above, Past Performance information may 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; the Defense Contract Management Agency; and interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Fee Determining Officials.

NOTE: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or “neutral”) past performance.

Receipt of a “No Confidence” rating for Technical Evaluation Factor 3 will render the proposal unawardable and the Offeror will be considered ineligible for award and not evaluated further.

Task Order

Task Order Factor 1_Technical Capability

The Technical Capability will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the Offeror demonstrates understanding of the Crowdsourced Vulnerability Discovery and Disclosure

Services Task Order requirements. Any proposed approach must reflect a demonstrated understanding of the requirements, and a sound, practical, and feasible method to accomplish all tasks, and proposes acceptable methods for ensuring the quality of deliverables.

Specifically, the Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s proposed Technical

Approach demonstrates complete understanding of crowdsourced vulnerability discovery and disclosure relative to FA2 Task Order.

Task Order Factor 2_Price

The Government will evaluate the proposed pricing, utilizing pricing proposed for RFP

Attachment 4_Task Order #1, in accordance with FAR 15.4 and the process stipulated below.

Price will be evaluated independent of technical evaluations. The Offeror’s price will be evaluated to determine if it is fair and reasonable. Additionally, task order award will further be contingent upon determinations of contractor responsibility. The Government will determine contractor responsibility through the System of Award Management (SAM) and Federal

Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS). For an Offeror to be eligible for award, the Offeror shall have an active record with no exclusions in SAM and shall have no negative records on FAPIIS. Price will not be rated adjectivally, but will be evaluated based on a comprehensive review. Price volumes will be evaluated regarding accuracy and completeness based on information submitted in the Offeror’s written submission. This process will involve verification that figures are correctly calculated, prices are presented in the requested format, and that proposed rates are accurate.

For evaluation under this RFP, the Government will consider the entire explanation of the proposed standard rate structure; but reserves the right to determine a Total Evaluated Rate

Structure based on part of the rate structure which would allow a direct comparison to other proposals received.

Section 9: Technical Capability Performance Evaluation Ratings and Definitions

1. The Offeror’s technical solution will be rated separately from the risk associated with its proposed approach. The technical rating evaluates the quality of the Offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirement. This adjectival rating scale will be used to evaluate the Offeror’s Volume 1 – Technical Proposal relative to Technical Factor 1 _ Management

Approach and Key Personnel and Technical Factor 2 _Technical Approach and Volume 2 – Task

Order Technical Proposal relative to Task Order Technical Factor 1_Technical Capability:

Adjectival

Rating Description

Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths.

Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength.

Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements and is unawardable.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable.

2. Assessment of technical risk, which is manifested by the identification of weakness(es), considers potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and/or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. This adjectival rating scale will be used to evaluate the Offeror’s Volume 1 –

Technical Proposal relative to technical risk affiliated with Technical Factor 1 _ Management

Approach and Key Personnel and Technical Factor 2 _Technical Approach:

Adjectival

Rating Description

Low

Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

3. The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the Offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. These are combined to establish one performance confidence assessment rating for each Offeror. Regarding relevancy, the following adjectival rating scale will be used to evaluate the Offeror’s Volume 1 – Technical Proposal relative to

Technical Factor 3_Past Performance:

Adjectival

Rating Description

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

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

Somewhat

Relevant

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

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

4. Regarding Confidence, which considers the quality of Offeror’s past efforts, the following adjectival rating scale will be used to evaluate the Offeror’s Volume 1 – Technical Proposal relative to Technical Factor 3_Past Performance:

Adjectival Rating Description

Satisfactory Confidence

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has a low expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has no expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence

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