TEAMS-Next MDS Engineering Section L 10.13.20.pdf

Approved for Public Release 20-MDA-10578 (18 Sep 20)

HQ0858-20-R-0014

TEAMS-Next

Missile Defense Systems (MDS)

Engineering

Section L

Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors

October 13, 2020

1.0 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS 3

2.0 SOURCE SELECTION METHODOLOGY 5

3.0 PROPOSAL CONTENT 8

4.0 PROPOSAL ORGANIZATION 9

5.0 CONTRACT DOCUMENTATION (VOLUME I) 14

6.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (VOLUME II) 15

7.0 FACTOR 1: MISSION CAPABILITY (VOLUME III) 16

8.0 FACTOR 2: SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION (VOLUME IV) 17

9.0 FACTOR 3: IMCP (VOLUME V) 20

10.0 FACTOR 4: OCI MANAGEMENT PLAN (VOLUME VI) 20

11.0 FACTOR 5: COST AND PRIVE (VOLUME VI) 21

12.0 LIST OF SECTION L ATTACHMENTS 30

Section L: Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors

This attachment will be removed upon award of the contract.

1.0 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

1.1 The proposal instructions in this section are designed to assist Offerors in preparing a complete response that reflects a full understanding of the approach proposed to accomplish all contractual requirements. Section M details how proposals will be evaluated.

1.2 Offerors are expected to comply with all requirements of the Request for Proposal (RFP).

The term “Subcontractor” is defined as any tier subcontractor or Intra-Company Work Transfer Authorization (IWTA). Team Members are the entities that make up a joint venture or any other partnership or teaming arrangement that is formed for the purpose of responding to this solicitation. Industry should review FAR subpart 9.6, FAR part 19, and 13 CFR part 121 for information on joint ventures. Teaming agreements should be provided with a joint venture’s proposal.

1.3 Entities (including companies and academic institutions) engaged in providing goods or services to the U.S. Government involving access to, or creation of, classified information must have an approved facility security clearance (FCL) commensurate with the level of information to be accessed. FCLs must be in place prior to contract award. For more information about obtaining a FCL, please visit www.dcsa.mil/mc/ctp.fc/. For additional questions regarding a sponsorship, please contact the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO).

1.4 The PCO is the primary point of contact for this acquisition. The Contract Specialist is the secondary point of contact. Written requests for exchanges of information may be sent to the PCO via email. Email is the preferred method for exchanges of information.

The PCO for this acquisition is as follows:

Joshua Kachelman

MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY (MDA)

CONTRACTS DIRECTORATE - MDA/CS-K

5222 Martin Road Redstone Arsenal, AL 35898-0001

(256) 450-0343 Email: joshua.kachelman@mda.mil

The secondary point of contact is as follows:

John Wallace http://www.dcsa.mil/mc/ctp.fc/ mailto:joshua.kachelman@mda.mil

CONTRACTS DIRECTORATE - MDA/CS-K

5222 Martin Road Redstone Arsenal, AL 35898-0001

(256) 450-4769 Email: john.d.wallace@mda.mil

The proposal shall be received prior to 4:00 pm central time on November 18, 2020. Late submissions will not be accepted. The Government prefers proposal submissions be conducted via the DoD Secure Access File Exchange (SAFE).

To initiate the proposal submission through DoD SAFE, the offeror must pre-coordinate point of contact (POC) information with MDA so that the PCO, in turn, can establish the required DoD SAFE “drop-off” to provide for the exchange. Offerors are strongly encouraged to provide this contact information well in advance of the proposal suspense date, preferably 14 days prior to proposal due date or earlier. To be clear, the offeror is solely responsible for ensuring its proposal is submitted in a complete and timely manner.

For proposal submission through DoD SAFE, implement the following steps:

1. Email the name, email address, and phone number for up to three (3) points of contact for the offeror’s designated individual(s) for the DoD SAFE exchange to the following addresses:

a. joshua.kachelman@mda.mil

b. john.d.wallace@mda.mil

c. TN-MDSENG@mda.mil

2. The PCO will establish a DoD SAFE “drop-off” for the identified offeror POC(s), which is the location where the offeror will upload its proposal.

3. The offeror POC(s) will receive an email notification from DoD SAFE (to include a web link) when the drop-off location is available for document submission. That link will only be available/accessible for 14 days from date of this email notification.

The PCO will establish the drop-off location within 14 days of the proposal due date, regardless of how early the offeror provides POC information.

4. When accessing the DoD Safe “drop-off” location, the offeror shall identify the following addresses for proposal receipt:

5. Offeror will click to add files and make a determination whether or not to encrypt each file. If encrypting, the offeror will be prompted to enter a “passphrase”.

mailto:john.d.wallace@mda.mil mailto:joshua.kachelman@mda.mil mailto:john.d.wallace@mda.mil mailto:TN-MDSENG@mda.mil mailto:joshua.kachelma@mda.mil mailto:john.d.wallace@mda.mil

6. Add all required files and click “Drop-off Files”. The files will now be available for pickup by the Government.

NOTE: A single submission can only accommodate up to 25 attachment files for a maximum 8 gigabytes of data. Therefore, if additional files must be transmitted, the offeror may create additional submissions using the “Drop-Off” item on the DoD SAFE menu bar.

7. If encrypting, provide a separate email containing the “passphrase” to the following recipients:

8. The offeror’s identified POC(s) should receive an email notification from DoD

SAFE when the files are picked up by the Government.

If unable to use DoD SAFE, the offeror may submit its proposal directly via email to joshua.kachelman@mda.mil, john.d.wallace@mda.mil, and TN-MDSENG@mda.mil.

However, offerors are reminded that their respective company’s information technology infrastructure limitations may lead to multiple email transmissions of large file attachments which, if submitted on the proposal due date, could substantially increase the risk of a late submission.

The offeror shall notify the PCO ahead of submittal whether it intends to submit via DoD SAFE or via email. The offeror is encouraged to review FAR 15.208 for additional information regarding electronic proposal submittal and consequences of late filings.

Address any questions or concerns you may have to the PCO. Offerors may submit written questions requesting clarification of RFP requirements via electronic mail to the following address: TN-MDSENG@mda.mil. Subject line shall state "MDS Engineering HQ0858-20- R-0014 - RFP Questions." It is requested that all questions be received within 10 days after receipt of RFP to allow the Government adequate time to prepare and issue responses to all Offerors prior to the date and time set for receipt of proposals. The Government will continue to accept questions up to the closing time of the solicitation; however, time may not permit responses to questions received after the aforementioned timeframe. Only written questions will receive a response. Information provided with each question shall include the document name, document date, specific page, paragraph, clause or other definitive citation requiring clarification. The Government will answer questions (providing both the question and the answer) via email to all interested parties. No questions with restrictive markings will be answered. Company-specific information will be omitted from all questions and answers.

mailto:joshua.kachelman@mda.mil mailto:john.d.wallace@mda.mil mailto:joshua.kachelman@mda.mil mailto:TN-MDSENG@mda.mil

1.5 Non-Governmental personnel from the contractors identified below:

The Government may release submitted proposal data to non-Government advisors for review, analysis, and evaluation. The following firm(s) may assist in the proposal evaluation process in an advisory capacity. The Government may also employ administrative and engineering support services contractors in the handling of solicitation documentation for purposes of security and document control. All such personnel will be required to execute a statement to preserve and protect from disclosure any source selection and contractor proprietary information disclosed to them during the course of these evaluations. It is anticipated that the following firm(s) will be involved in the source selection process:

Provide Source Selection Advisory Assistance:

Kepler Research 13663 Office Place Suite 202 Woodbridge, VA 22192

The support contractor advisors are subject to contractual Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) restrictions and are expressly prohibited from competing on this acquisition in any fashion, i.e., being a prime, subcontractor, or teaming partner. Contractor personnel supporting this acquisition have signed Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) and are subject to OCI restrictions. Individuals will be authorized access only to those portions of the proposal data and discussions that are necessary for them to perform their respective duties.

Objections to disclosure of proposals, or specific portions, to the non-Government advisors listed above must be provided in writing to the PCO within five (5) business days of solicitation issuance. If no objections are submitted, the Offeror(s) must enter into a non-disclosure agreement with the non-Government advisor(s), or with the company employing the non-Government advisor before the non-Government advisor(s) are given access to the Offeror(s) proprietary or source selection information. The fully executed NDAs must be submitted NLT 10 days prior to the proposal submission. The NDAs shall be sent to TN- MDSENG@mda.mil, joshua.kachelman@mda.mil and john.d.wallace@mda.mil.

WRITTEN OBJECTIONS MUST INCLUDE A DETAILED STATEMENT OF THE

BASIS FOR THE OFFEROR’S OBJECTION AND IDENTIFY SPECIFIC PORTIONS

OF THE PROPOSAL THE OFFEROR OBJECTS TO DISCLOSE TO NON-

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTOR ADVISORS.

1.6 Notice Regarding OCI – Determination to Participate in This Acquisition

a) The acquisition of advisory and assistance services under this solicitation may create actual or potential conflicts of interest for Offerors and prospective teammates or mailto:joshua.kachelman@mda.mil subcontractors. In assessing and addressing conflicts of interest, MDA will follow the guidance in FAR subpart 9.5. The Offeror is responsible for ensuring that both it and its proposed teammates and/or subcontractors are not restricted from participating in this acquisition due to an OCI caused by any MDA-funded contract or subcontract;

Missile Defense System (MDS)-related contract or subcontract; or, other significant, non-MDS related business relationships with firms doing business with or in support of

MDA.

b) Given the broad reach of the contracting discipline in terms of access to contractor proprietary information, as well as sensitive acquisition strategy information, MDA requires a robust contract that is free of any OCI, such that the MDS Engineering contractor can support the entire MDA enterprise without restriction. Accordingly, the MDS Engineering contract will be restricted through the entire MDS Engineering contract period of performance as set forth in contract clause H-09 - ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST. Applicable restrictions and duration of restrictions are indicated in paragraph f of the clause.

c) Procedures to follow with proposal submission:

1) Each Offeror must submit, for itself, partners, and subcontractors, an “OCI

Disclosure Form”, Attachment L-07 and applicable supporting documents. The submission shall identify all of the team's MDA-funded contracts or subcontracts;

MDS-related contracts or subcontracts; and any significant (greater than 45% of revenues), non-MDS related business relationships with firms doing business with or in support of MDA. For each identified contract, the Offeror shall disclose the contract number; name, and telephone number of the PCO; a description of the work performed or being performed; and, such additional information as the PCO may request to assist in the identification of actual or potential OCIs.

2) The Agency prefers that Offerors competing for TEAMS-Next requirements be free from OCIs and that they avoid or neutralize potential conflicts as opposed to proposing mitigation strategies. While mitigation strategies will not be prohibited, a high standard will be applied when determining the sufficiency of any proposed strategy. MDA does not intend to waive OCIs for TEAMS-Next except under very limited, and unusual and compelling circumstances. Any such waiver will require review and approval by the MDA Director. Consequently, Industry is encouraged to avoid OCIs to the maximum extent practicable and to submit OCI free proposals for TEAMS-Next efforts.

3) If an Offeror determines that an actual or potential OCI does not exist, it shall include a statement to that effect as part of its proposal, and does not need to submit an OCI Mitigation Plan with its proposal. However, if an OCI is present and an Offeror fails to provide an acceptable OCI mitigation strategy, the Offeror’s proposal may be rejected, relieving the Government of any further responsibility to resolve the OCI(s). See FAR 9.504(e).

4) Should the Offeror elect to submit an OCI Mitigation Plan, it must address all conflicts in adequate detail for the PCO to determine whether an OCI exists or has been mitigated. To facilitate resolution of OCIs during evaluations, Offerors are encouraged to submit an OCI Mitigation Plan with the proposal. The OCI Mitigation Plan shall specifically address the OCI disclosures required in this section and explain how the prime is in full compliance with H-09 Organizational Conflict of Interest (February 2020). The OCI Mitigation Plan will be reviewed in conjunction with the PCO’s Responsibility Determination prior to award.

Note: Notices to Offerors of OCIs and the responses thereto are not negotiations or discussions as those terms are used in FAR 15.306(d).

d) Offerors competing for TEAMS-Next requirements must be free of OCIs at the time of award. The PCO shall review and determine whether the Offeror selected for award has no OCIs or has addressed and resolved all OCIs before making an award. The PCO reserves the right to reject offers from Offerors which do not adequately resolve all OCIs or are inconsistent with the identified MDS Engineering OCI restrictions. If an OCI is not adequately resolved, the PCO reserves the right to notify the Offeror and allow the Offeror a reasonable opportunity to respond before making an award decision. If the likely successful Offeror is rejected due to OCI, the Government will consider the next highest rated Offeror for award. The PCO also reserves the right to obtain an OCI waiver and make an award when in the best interests of the United States.

2.0 SOURCE SELECTION METHODOLOGY

2.1 Competitive, Best Value Source Selection

The Government intends to award a full and open, cost reimbursement contract under FAR Part 15. The contract will consist of Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) LOE Labor Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs), Cost Travel and ODC CLINs, and an option CPFF LOE CLIN; and, will have a base period of three years with two, two-year options plus a 6 month option to extend services. Offerors should note that the contract resulting from this solicitation will be awarded on the basis of the best value decision made under this solicitation.

2.2 MDA Intent to Award without Discussions - Offeror’s Best Terms

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with Offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). Therefore, the Offeror’s initial proposal shall contain the Offeror’s best terms for non-cost and cost factors. When the Government pursues award without discussions, the Offerors may be given the opportunity IAW FAR 15.306 to clarify certain aspects of their proposals (e.g., adverse past performance information to which the Offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond) or to resolve minor or clerical errors. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the PCO determines them to be necessary.

2.3 Competitive Range

If discussions are to be conducted, the PCO will establish a competitive range (as set forth in FAR 15.306(c)) based on the ratings of each proposal against all evaluation criteria. If the PCO determines that an Offeror’s proposal should not be included in the competitive range, the proposal will be eliminated from consideration for award and written notice of the decision will be provided to the unsuccessful Offeror in accordance with FAR 15.503.

Discussions (if required) may be conducted either orally or in writing. The scope and extent of the discussions are a matter of PCO judgment as set forth in FAR 15.306.

Responses from Offerors may be required within two business days.

If the PCO determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the PCO may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

2.4 Final Proposal Revisions (FPR)

Although the Government intends to award without discussions, should discussions with Offeror(s) be deemed necessary, upon completion of those discussions, the PCO will request that the Offeror(s) provide a FPR.

The Offeror is advised that any changes to the proposal in the FPR shall be fully addressed, explained, and reflected in the proposed price. Failure to comply with this requirement can adversely influence the evaluation of the proposal. The PCO will establish a common due date, time, and instructions for submission of the FPR.

If FPRs are requested, any revisions or non-compliance with contract terms and conditions submitted in the FPR may not be subject to further discussion or negotiation and may render the offer unacceptable to the Government. This provision is not intended to restrict the Offeror’s opportunity to revise figures (e.g., prices, discounts, or percentage rates) but is intended to preclude any misunderstandings by the Government (that could result if new or revised terms and conditions submitted in the FPR have not been fully disclosed, discussed, and understood during discussions or negotiations). Thus, such new or revised terms and conditions are not solicited and, if submitted in the FPR, may render the offer unacceptable to the Government.

Offerors are reminded that there is a continuing obligation to notify MDA of any changes to key personnel proposed in the FPR occurring after submission of the FPR but before announcement of an award decision.

2.5 Pre and Post Award Debriefing

Pre and Post award debriefings will be conducted IAW FAR 15.505 and 15.506, respectively, and Class Deviation 2018-O0011 Enhanced Post-award Debriefing Rights in the case of a post-award debriefing.

2.6 Errors or Omissions

If an Offeror believes that the requirements in these instructions contain an error, omission, ambiguity, or are otherwise unsound, the Offeror shall immediately notify the PCO in writing with supporting rationale no later than five business days after release of this solicitation.

2.7 Mistakes

Mistakes in an Offeror’s proposal discovered after award shall be handled IAW FAR 14.407-4 as referenced in FAR 15.508.

2.8 Evaluation Notices (ENs)

Should the Government need to conduct written exchanges with Offerors, they will be in the form of an evaluation notice (EN). Page format and limitations will be placed on responses to ENs in the event they are issued. The specified page limits for EN responses will be identified in the letters forwarding the ENs to the Offerors. The ENs may be sent electronically (i.e., via e-mail) at the discretion of the PCO. Offerors must submit their responses by the time and date specified in the letter.

2.9 Request for Proposal (RFP) Revisions or Amendments

The Government reserves the right to revise or amend any portion of this solicitation. Such revisions or amendments will be available at https://beta.sam.gov/ using Standard Form (SF) 33. Potential Offerors are encouraged to subscribe for real-time e-mail notifications when information has been posted to https://beta.sam.gov/. For amendments requiring material changes, the proposal due date may be extended at the discretion of the PCO to enable an Offeror to revise its proposal. In such cases, the amendment will include an announcement of the new proposal due date and time. The Offeror shall provide written acknowledgement of any solicitation amendments issued by the Government.

2.10 Offeror’s Library

The Offeror’s Library contains documents to inform Offerors of MDA’s requirements. Requests for the Offeror’s Library may be submitted to TN-MDSENG@mda.mil. The request must include the following information:

Company Name:

https://beta.sam.gov/

Company/Division Address:

CAGE Code:

DUNS Number:

Company Point of Contract for Delivery: (name, email, and phone number) Mailing Address (if different than Company/Division Address):

The Government will verify the company information identified above in the System for Award Management website (https://beta.sam.gov). Firms without a CAGE Code and DUNS number will not be provided the information.

All information provided by electronic means will be unclassified/For Official Use Only

(FOUO).

To gain access to the library, firms must have been certified under the Joint Certification Program (JCP). (https://www.dla.mil/HQ/LogisticsOperations/Services/JCP/) The Government will verify company certification in the JCP database.

3.0 PROPOSAL CONTENT

3.1 Proposal Acceptability

In order to be eligible for award, 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 factors or subfactors. By submission of its proposal, the Offeror consents and agrees to all solicitation requirements and identified constraints.

Non-conformance with the instructions provided may result in an unfavorable proposal evaluation, or rejection of an Offeror’s proposal, rendering it ineligible for award. Non-conformance includes, but is not limited to, failure to follow the instructions required by the RFP and/or failure to submit all required information for each volume described in the Proposal Organizational Table L-1.

3.2 The proposal shall be clear, concise, and shall include sufficient detail for effective evaluation by the Government and for substantiating the validity of stated claims. The proposal shall provide convincing rationale to address how the Offeror intends to meet the areas to be evaluated. Proposals shall not simply rephrase or restate the Government's statement of work (SOW) requirements nor restate applicable laws, policy, or regulations.

Offerors shall assume the Government has no prior knowledge of the Offeror’s experience and will base its evaluation on the information presented in the Offeror’s proposal.

Alternate proposals – defined herein as proposals that deviate in any way from the solicitation terms and conditions and the stated SOW requirement – will not be considered or evaluated.

https://beta.sam.gov/ https://www.dla.mil/HQ/LogisticsOperations/Services/JCP/

Contingent proposals are not allowed, nor will they be accepted, considered or evaluated by the Government. Contingent proposals are defined herein as proposals that include terms or conditions that imply that performance is contingent upon any sort of provisioning from the Government that is not set forth in the RFP.

The Offeror’s proposal shall include all of the information requested and shall comply fully with these Section L instructions. Failure to do so may cause the Offeror’s proposal to be eliminated from consideration for award. Offerors are reminded to properly mark their proposal documents which contain proprietary or restricted information.

3.3 Offerors are advised that, should it be awarded a contract, the Government may incorporate into the final contract enhancing features included in the successful Offeror’s proposal deemed beneficial to the Government. With the exception of Section B, all cost or pricing information should be included in the Cost and Price Volume and no other volume. The Government advises Offerors that taking exception to, or deviating from, any term or condition of the RFP may make an offer unacceptable and the Offeror ineligible for award.

3.4 The Offeror shall make a clear statement in the Executive Summary that the proposal is valid at least 270 days from the proposal due date.

NOTE: IF THE PROPOSAL IS NOT RECEIVED BY THE DUE DATE AND TIME

SPECIFIED, THE OFFEROR’S PROPOSAL IS CONSIDERED LATE IN

ACCORDANCE WITH FAR 52.215-1.

4.0 PROPOSAL ORGANIZATION

4.1 In presenting material in the proposal, the Offeror is advised that quality of information is more important than quantity. Clarity, brevity, and logical organization should be emphasized during proposal preparation. It is the responsibility of the Offeror to present enough information to allow the various technical and management approaches, as well as cost and price, to be meaningfully evaluated without discussions. The Offeror must include any data necessary to illustrate the adequacy of the various assumptions, approaches, and solutions to problems. Unnecessarily elaborate brochures or other presentation materials beyond that sufficient to present a complete and effective proposal is neither necessary nor desired.

4.2 The Offeror shall prepare the proposal as set forth in the Proposal Organization Table L-1 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 L-1. The contents of each proposal volume are described in the Proposal Organization paragraphs as noted in the table below.

4.3 Each proposal volume shall be unclassified. Each volume shall be written in Standard

English and be complete in and of itself.

The Offeror shall provide a Proposal Cross Reference Matrix as set forth in Table L-2.

This proposal matrix is only a tool to assist in the proposal evaluation process.

4.4 Table L-1 shall serve as the Offeror’s guide for proposal organization and content by volume.

Table L-1: Proposal Organization and Content

Volume Title # of Hard

Copies

# of Electronic

Copies

Max # of Pages

Volume I – Contract Documentation 0 2 Tab 1: Master Table of Contents Unlimited Tab 2: Model Contract Unlimited Tab 3: Solicitation Exceptions Matrix Unlimited Tab 4: Ground Rules and Assumptions Unlimited Tab 5: OCI Disclosure Forms and Attachments Unlimited Tab 6: OCI Mitigation Plan (if required)* Unlimited Tab 7: Mission Essential Services Plan 4

Volume II – Executive Summary 0 2 Tab 1: Executive Summary Content 10 Tab 2: Proposal Cross Reference Matrix Unlimited

Volume III – Factor 1: Mission Capability 0 2

Tab 1: MCS1 MDS-Level System Engineering and Integration 10 Tab 2: MCS2 MDS Subsystem-Level System Engineering and

Integration

Tab 3: MCS3 Command and Control, Battle Management, and Communications to Integrate Across All Layers of the

MDS

Tab 4: MCS4 MDS Modeling and Simulation (M&S) 10 Tab 5: MCS5 Human Capital Approach 15

Volume IV – Factor 2: Small Business 0 2 Tab 1: Small Business Participation Plan 15 Tab 2: Individual Subcontracting Plan (Large Business, as required) Unlimited

Volume V – Factor 3: Information Management and Control Plan (IMCP) Services 0 2

Tab 1: IMCP (plan) 5

Tab 2: Appendix A Unlimited

Volume VI – Factor 4: OCI Management Plan 0 2 15

Volume VII – Factor 5: Cost and Price 0 2 Unlimited Tab 1: Cost/Price Narrative 0 2 Unlimited Tab 2: Excel Prices Workbook (EPW) 1 Unlimited

* If the Offeror elects to submit an OCI Mitigation Plan, it should be provided as Tab 6 to Volume I (see paragraph 1.6(c)(4)). If required, the OCI Mitigation Plan will be included as a Section J attachment at award.

Page limitations shall be treated as maximums. If exceeded, the excess pages will not be read or considered in the evaluation of the proposal. Each page shall be counted except the following:

a) Volume Cover Pages

b) Table of Contents

c) List of Tables and Figures

d) Glossaries and Acronym List

e) Tabs and Dividers

f) Blank pages

4.5 Page size shall be 8.5 x 11 inches, not including foldouts. Except for the reproduced sections of the solicitation document and any non-narrative sections (e.g., tables, graphs, charts, figures), the text size shall be no less than Microsoft Word Times New Roman 12 point font, single-spaced. Pages shall be numbered sequentially by volume. In the event the Offeror creates an ambiguity, the Government may exercise its own discretion in counting pages. If the page count is exceeded, the excess pages will not be read or considered in the evaluation of the proposal. Special consideration will not be given for colors, pictures or unnecessary graphics. Other than the electronic media solicited, audio and video recordings, or any other electronic media (i.e., CD & tape) will not be accepted.

4.6 Legible tables, charts, graphs, diagrams, schematics and figures shall be used wherever practical to depict organizations, systems and layout, implementation schedules, and plans.

These displays shall be uncomplicated, legible and shall not exceed 11 x 17 inches in size.

Each printed side of a foldout will count as two pages. For tables, charts, graphs and figures, the font shall be no smaller than 8 point.

4.7 Each volume shall contain a glossary of all abbreviations and acronyms used for the entire proposal, with an explanation for each. Glossaries do not count against the page limitations for their respective volumes.

4.8 Each volume shall contain a detailed table of contents to delineate the subparagraphs within that volume. A Master Table of Contents, contained in Volume I, shall contain a consolidation of the individual Table of Contents for all Volumes. See Section 5.1.

4.9 Reserved

4.10 Tables and figures can be used to illustrate quantitative or qualitative data. Tables and figures are not required. If provided, each volume shall contain a list of all tables and figures within that volume. The List of Tables and Figures will not count against the page limitations for their respective volumes. Tables, graphs, charts, and figures are considered non-narrative sections of the proposal and are only to be provided to enhance the proposal narrative. If, at the PCO’s discretion, an excessive amount of narrative is included in a table, chart, graphic, or illustration in an effort to subvert the proposal’s page limitations, the text may be severed from the non-narrative section and included in the page count of the narrative section of the proposal.

4.11 Each volume shall be written on a stand-alone basis so that its contents may be evaluated without cross-referencing to other volumes of the proposal with the one exception being MCS5 Element #2 which requires review of the Cost Volume. In addition, each response to each subfactor for Factor 1, Mission Capability, shall be written on a stand-alone basis so that its contents may be evaluated without cross-reference to other subfactors (with the exception of MCS5 Human Capital Management Element #2 Retain Qualified Personnel).

4.12 All prime and team member information must be incorporated into one coherent submittal.

Be sure to identify appropriate markings such as the legend at FAR 52.215-1(e), Restriction on disclosure and use of data.

4.13 Reserved

4.14 Reserved

4.15 Reserved

4.16 One set of complete electronic volumes shall be submitted in Microsoft Office 2016 or earlier compatible version. The second set of complete electronic volumes shall be submitted in Adobe Acrobat DC, with the exception of Volume VII Tab 2 Excel Price Workbook. Pricing spreadsheets (Excel Price Workbook (EPW)) shall be submitted using MS Excel 2016 or earlier compatible version. The EPW must contain all formulas used in developing the proposal and all cells in the EPW must be “unlocked” and without password protection. If files contain links, the links must be intact and maintained through all revisions. Electronic copies shall not be password protected. Each directory shall contain a file with the Table of Contents for that volume. Offerors shall ensure electronic files are virus free. Offerors who do not provide a “complete” electronic EPW (Attachment L5 – Excel Pricing Workbook) and/or Pricing Volume Narrative (Section L-11.6) (after discussions, if discussions are held) will be removed from consideration for award. A “complete” EPW is defined as an EPW that contains, at a minimum, completion of all the fields in the EPW format provided with the RFP.

4.17 Sound or video files shall not be embedded into the proposal files.

4.18 All proposals shall be submitted to the following addresses:

ATTN: Joshua Kachelman, MDA/CS-K Joshua.kachelman@mda.mil & TN-MDSENG@mda.mil

4.19 The Government may need to conduct exchanges with Offerors which will be in the form of an Evaluation Notice (EN). Page format and specified page limits for EN responses will be identified in the letters forwarding the ENs to the Offerors. ENs may be sent electronically (i.e., via email) at the discretion of the Government. The EN will request an email response, and Offerors must submit their responses by the time and date specified in the letter.

5.0 CONTRACT DOCUMENTATION (VOLUME I)

5.1 The Offeror shall include a master table of contents of the entire proposal (include in

Contract Documentation volume only). See Section 4.9 and Table L-1: Proposal Organization and Content.

5.2 Model Contract (SF33)

The Offeror shall provide a complete copy of this RFP (including Section L and Section M, less other attachments, with any amendments) with an official electronic signature or copy of a scanned original signature of an official authorized to contractually bind the Offeror in Block 30 of the SF33. The Offeror must complete the following sections within the RFP:

• Section A (SF33, Blocks 13 through 18)

• Section B

Offerors will populate the estimated cost and fixed fee values for CPFF LOE CLINs and Government-provided cost values for Cost-Only CLINs.

• Section K, Representations, Certifications and other Statements of Offeror Offerors shall complete representations, certifications, acknowledgments and statements via the System for Award Management (SAM) at https://beta.sam.gov. A copy shall be included in the Contract Documentation volume. Any additional Section K information shall also be included in this section. NOTE: Offerors shall verify that “reps and certs” are also contained in SAM to ensure that all “reps and certs” completed and submitted via SAM correspond with those included in the solicitation. For example, the solicitation may contain new cybersecurity clauses that are not available in SAM. In such cases, the Offeror shall complete the applicable “reps and certs” included in the solicitation and submit with its proposal.

mailto:Joshua.kachelman@mda.mil

5.3 The Offeror is required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements. The Offeror must clearly identify any exceptions to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. Each exception shall refer to a 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 to document any exceptions to, or deviations from, any of the clauses or special contract requirements along with justification.

5.4 Ground Rules and Assumptions

The Offeror must clearly identify any ground rules and assumptions made in preparing the proposal.

5.5 OCI Disclosures

The Offeror must submit an OCI Disclosure Form for each instance of MDA related work (e.g., subcontract, prime contract, etc.), whether contracted by MDA or another Government Agency as detailed in paragraph 1.6(c)(1).

5.6 OCI Mitigation Plan

If the Offeror elects to submit an OCI Mitigation Plan, it should be included in Volume I at Tab 6. See paragraphs 1.6(c)(2) through 1.6(c)(4) for additional considerations. The PCO may request mitigation plans as required depending on the content provided in the OCI disclosure forms.

5.7 Mission Essential Services Plan

In accordance with DFARS 252.237-7024, Notice of Continuation of Essential Contractor Services, Offeror shall provide the plan required as specified in the provision. The plan should be included in Volume I at Tab 7. The plan shall be incorporated at contract award.

6.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (VOLUME II)

6.1 The Executive Summary shall include company information and a summary of the

Offeror’s proposal. Any summary material presented here shall not be considered as meeting the solicitation requirements for any portions of other volumes of the proposal.

Company Information: The Offeror shall provide the Company/Division Address, Identifying Codes, and Applicable Designations, company/division's street address, county and facility code, CAGE code, DUNS code, and size of business (large or small). The Offeror shall also provide the mailing address, telephone and fax numbers and facility codes for the cognizant Contract Administration Office, Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA), and Government Paying Office including the name, telephone and fax number for the Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO). The Offeror shall provide a single point of contact and one alternate for all matters dealing with its proposal including name, position title, address, phone number, fax number and email address. In addition, the Offeror shall provide the name and contact information for its Facility Security Officer that is responsible for managing the Offeror’s facility and personnel clearance actions.

Proposal Summary: The Offeror shall provide a top-level summary of its proposal suitable for describing its approach to Agency senior leadership.

Include documentation to facilitate the PCO’s determination that the Offeror has adequate financial resources to perform the contract or ability to obtain them (e.g., a letter of credit from a bank or other applicable information). Title this section of the Executive Summary:

Financial Resources Information. The information provided shall not be dated earlier than three (3) months from the date of the solicitation.

6.2 Proposal Cross Reference Matrix: The Offeror shall provide a matrix using the format below (Table L-2) to cross reference its proposal to, at a minimum, the SOW, Section L, and Section M. The Offeror’s proposal paragraph number and format shall mirror Section L and Section M paragraph numbering to the maximum extent practicable. The Offeror shall include and populate additional columns as it sees fit to accommodate a more efficient evaluation.

Table L-2: Proposal Cross Reference Matrix Format

SOW Paragraph Section L Section M Offeror’s Proposal Paragraph Reference

XX.X L-XX.X M-XX.X XX.X

7.0 FACTOR 1: MISSION CAPABILITY (VOLUME III)

7.1 The Offeror’s Mission Capability volume will consist of the following subfactors:

Mission Capability Subfactor 1 (MCS1): MDS-Level System Engineering and Integration Mission Capability Subfactor 2 (MCS2): MDS Subsystem-Level System Engineering and

Integration Mission Capability Subfactor 3 (MCS3): Command and Control, Battle Management, and

Communications to Integrate Across All Layers of the MDS Mission Capability Subfactor 4 (MCS4): MDS Modeling and Simulation (M&S) Mission Capability Subfactor 5 (MCS5): Human Capital Approach

7.2 Subfactor MCS1: MDS-Level System Engineering and Integration

The Offeror shall propose an approach to, and understanding of, MDS-Level System Engineering and Integration, for a complex DoD weapon system or analogous system, which may be supported in part through examples of related experience, to accomplish the following elements:

MCS1 Element #1: Providing technical assessments and engineering analyses;

recommendations on entrance and exit criteria; and tailoring objective evidence that supports the criteria for a system of systems.

MCS1 Element #2: Performing systems engineering functions and executing processes for development and maintenance of MDS specifications and change notices as well as conducting analyses and providing technical recommendations for trace activities to assess requirements flow-down from the system-level to the subsystem level.

MCS1 Element #3: Developing, documenting, and executing MDS performance assessments to correctly characterize the system under test, and documentation accurately describes capabilities and limitations.

7.3 Subfactor MCS2: MDS Subsystem-Level System Engineering and Integration

The Offeror shall propose an approach to, and understanding of, MDS Subsystem-Level System Engineering and Integration, for a complex DoD weapon system or analogous system, which may be supported in part through examples of related experience, to accomplish the following elements:

MCS2 Element #1: Developing and documenting subsystem-level requirements with decomposition and traceability from System Specification including conducting requirements trade studies, analyses, and audits to ensure complete understanding of element and component capability integration; identifying potential gaps and issues; and, assigning requirements to build capabilities.

MCS2 Element #2: Developing subsystem-level test requirements, objectives, scenarios, procedures, test and management plans, and schedules; and identifying, reporting, and tracking specific test risks and alternative resolutions.

MCS2 Element #3: Providing fielding and sustainment including development of fielding plans, policies, and agreements IAW Joint Staff, Combatant Command, and Service requirements.

7.4 Subfactor MCS3: Command and Control, Battle Management, and Communications to Integrate Across All Layers of the MDS

The Offeror shall propose an approach to, and understanding of, Command and Control, Battle Management, and Communications to Integrate Across All Layers of MDS, for a complex DoD weapon system or analogous system, which may be supported in part through examples of related experience, to accomplish the following elements:

MCS3 Element #1: Providing Command, Control, Communications, and Battle Management (C3BM) capability planning, development, and assessment including integrating advanced capabilities into spiral builds, C3BM capability roadmaps, and Operational Concepts (OPCONs).

MCS3 Element #2: Developing MDS and subsystem test objectives, and reviewing and assessing System Under Test (SUT) and developmental SUT objectives for impacts on defined C2BMC interfaces and interface test objectives.

MCS3 Element #3: Providing fielding, operation and sustainment engineering including system test metrics updates; C2BMC analysis, test, and operations status situational awareness summaries; and C2BMC situational awareness spot reports.

7.5 Subfactor MCS4: MDS Modeling and Simulation (M&S)

The Offeror shall propose an approach to, and understanding of, MDS Modeling and Simulation, for a complex DoD weapon system or analogous system, which may be supported in part through examples of related experience, to accomplish the following elements:

MCS4 Element #1: Planning, coordinating, managing, documenting, developing, and sustaining the Agency’s M&S framework and core truth models.

MCS4 Element #2: Integration and execution of Hardware-in-the-Loop (HWIL) and digital architectures supporting Agency test programs and objectives.

7.6 Subfactor MCS5: Human Capital Approach

The Offeror shall propose its approach to, and understanding of, the following elements:

MCS5 Element #1: Recruiting Qualified Personnel – Demonstrating the process for timely recruiting and on-boarding of personnel that meet the qualifications set forth in the SOW labor competencies (SOW 4.3.a.6)). Addressing processes and timelines for backfilling billets and providing an approach to quickly increase staffing to support potential new mission areas. “New mission areas” could be new locations to be supported, or new requirements that emerge during the life of the contract (which would be implemented via the TERP process).

MCS5 Element #2: Retaining Qualified Personnel – In concert with the compensation plan portion of the Cost/Price Volume, addressing compensation plan/benefits and other associated incentives to retain qualified personnel.

MCS5 Element #3: Problem Resolution Strategy – Problem resolution strategy addressing customer complaints in the following areas:

a) Unsatisfactory job performance at the employee level (e.g., lack of technical ability)

b) Unsatisfactory systemic performance (e.g., pervasive and continued unsatisfactory performance across an entire function)

c) Personnel misconduct issues (e.g., timecard fraud, computer misuse, improper behavior/conduct)

8.0 FACTOR 2: SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION (VOLUME IV)

8.1 All Offerors shall submit a Small Business Participation Plan for evaluation. The successful Offeror’s evaluated proposed Small Business Participation Plan will be incorporated into the contract at contract award. All categories of small business goals specifically identified in the proposed Small Business Participation Plan must be the same as the goals included in the Individual Subcontracting Plan (if applicable).

A large business Offeror shall submit a small business Individual Subcontracting Plan IAW FAR 52.219-9 including information required in paragraphs (d) (1) through (d) (14) of that clause. The small business Individual Subcontracting Plan will not be evaluated. As a FAR requirement, the PCO will review the Individual Subcontracting Plan to determine if it is acceptable in order for the successful Offeror to be eligible for contract award. At contract award, the successful Offeror’s Individual Subcontracting Plan will be incorporated into the contract along with the evaluated proposed Small Business Participation Plan.

Large business Offerors’ DoD Comprehensive Subcontracting Plan Test Program participants comply with DFARS 252.219-7004 and may submit the most current Defense Contract Management Agency approved Comprehensive Subcontracting Plan in lieu of an Individual Subcontracting Plan. The Comprehensive Subcontracting Plan will not be evaluated. If submitting a comprehensive plan, DoD Comprehensive Subcontracting Plan Test Program participants must additionally submit for evaluation a Small Business Participation Plan. At contract award, the successful Offeror’s Comprehensive Subcontracting Plan may be incorporated into the contract along with the evaluated proposed Small Business Participation Plan.

Small business participation constitutes small business utilization contributions to contract performance at the 1st tier subcontract level. The proposed work to be performed directly by a small business prime Offeror will also be considered as Small Business Participation.

8.2 Small Business Participation Plan:

All Offerors shall submit as (Volume IV) a Small Business Participation Plan. The Government will assess the five aspects of the Small Business Participation Plan, and use the submitted Plan to determine the contractor’s commitment to small business participation for Factor 2. This assessment is separate from the FAR requirement for the PCO’s review and acceptance of an Offeror’s Individual Subcontracting Plan. The Plan provides specific details of how the Offeror will use small business at the first tier subcontract level and throughout the period of performance of the contract, including all options, and the proposed approach to comply with the small business utilization statement of work requirement (SOW paragraph 5.7).

As a minimum, an acceptable Small Business Participation Plan comprehensively addresses the following five aspects and provides specific details of how the Offeror will use small business at the first tier subcontract level and throughout the period of performance of the contract, including all options:

a) Method used to develop dollar and percentage goals for the Small Business

Participation Plan expressed in terms of total contract value dollars and percentages.

Total contract value means the final anticipated dollar value, including the base contract and dollar value of all options. Large businesses achieve the goals through subcontracting; small businesses may achieve goals through their own performance / participation as a prime without having to subcontract. The Government will assess the Small Business Participation Plan to determine which Offeror(s) proposed the best value in terms of meeting or exceeding all categories of the small business participation goals established for this acquisition as specified in the table below.

Table L-3: Small Business Participation Percentages and Dollars

TOTAL CONTRACT VALUE - $

Small Business Categories

Total Contract Value % Goals Subcontractor Name

Proposed Total Contract

Value SB %

Proposed Total Contract Value SB

Participation Dollars Small Business 33 Small Disadvantaged Small Business 4

Women-Owned Small Business 10

HUBZone Small Business 5

Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business

Veteran Owned Small Business 3

Note: The above small business participation goals represent the PCO’s assessment of appropriate minimum participation (prime through the 1st tier) expressed as a percentage of total contract value. Offerors are encouraged to propose values greater than the program goals listed.

b) Specific initiatives and tools (e.g., mentor protégé program, use of innovative technology) that will be employed under the contract to enhance small business participation and strengthen the industrial base MDA relies on for Missile Defense System.

c) Small business objectives of significant importance to MDA include:

1) Increasing use of qualified small businesses to enhance readiness and…