Combined_Synopsis_Solicitation_HR0011-18-R-0002.pdf

HR0011-18-R-0002 Page 1 of 25

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) Audit Readiness and Accounting Operations Support Services

Combined Synopsis/Solicitation

Description

(i) 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 document will not be issued.

(ii) This solicitation number is HR0011-18-R-0002 and is a request for proposal (RFP).

(iii) The solicitation document and incorporated provisions and clauses are those in effect through Federal Acquisition Circular 2005-97, dated January 24, 2018.

(iv) This is a competitive procurement set-aside for 8(a) firms. The associated North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) code for this procurement is 541219, with a small business size standard of $20.5 million.

(v) Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINS):

Line Item

Description Quantity Unit Period of Performance

0001 Audit Readiness Support Services Services in accordance with PWS tasks 4.1 and 4.3

1 LOT 04-OCT-2018

TO

03-OCT-2019

0002 Accounting and Financial Management Support Services Services in accordance with PWS task 4.2.

1 LOT 12-JUN-2019

TO

03-OCT-2019

0003 Travel/ODCs Travel and ODCs in support of CLINS 0001 and 0002.

1 LOT 04-OCT-2018

TO

03-OCT-2019

Option Audit Readiness, Accounting, and Financial Management Support Services Services in accordance with PWS tasks 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3.

1 LOT 04-OCT-2019

TO

03-OCT-2020

Option

Travel/ODCs Travel and ODCs in support of

CLIN 1001.

1 LOT 04-OCT-2019

TO

03-OCT-2020

Option Audit Readiness Support Services. Services in accordance with PWS tasks 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3.

1 LOT 04-OCT-2020

TO

03-OCT-2021

Option Travel/ODCs 1 LOT 04-OCT-2020

TO

HR0011-18-R-0002 Page 2 of 25

Travel and ODCs in support of

CLIN 2001.

03-OCT-2021

Option

Audit Readiness, Accounting, and Financial Management Support Services. Services in accordance with PWS tasks 4.1, 4.2, 4.3.

1 LOT 04-OCT-2021

TO

03-OCT-2022

Option

Travel/ODCs Travel and ODCs in support of

CLIN 3001.

1 LOT 04-OCT2021

TO

03-OCT-2022

Option Audit Readiness, Accounting, and Financial Management Support Services Services in accordance with PWS tasks 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3.

1 LOT 04-OCT-2022

TO

03-OCT-2023

Option

Travel/ODCs Travel and ODCs in support of

CLIN 4001

1 LOT 04-OCT-2022

TO

03-OCT-2023

(vi) Description of Requirements: The Performance Work Statement (PWS) can be found in

Attachment 1. Additional requirements can be found in Attachment 1A.

(vii) Period of Performance: The period of performance will include one 12-month base year which per Attachment 6 includes the thirty-day transition period, and four 12-month option years. This requirement is a consolidation of two separate, but closely aligned, requirements. The contract for one of the requirements does not end until June 2019, requiring CLIN 0002 to have a different period of performance in the base year. After the base year, all tasks will be aligned to the same period of performance. See section (v).

(viii) 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Items (Jan 2017), applies to this acquisition. As an addendum to this provision, Offerors are instructed to submit proposals per the following instructions:

ADDENDUM TO 52.212-1 INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS – COMMERCIAL ITEMS

(JAN 2017) – SECTION L

L-1.0 Proposal Submission Requirements

Offerors are instructed to read the entire solicitation document, including all attachments, prior to submitting questions and/or preparing the proposal. Omission of any information from the proposal submission requirements may result in rejection of the proposal.

The proposal shall be formatted into a transmittal letter and five separate electronic folders by volume number and title as follows:

• Transmittal Letter

• Volume I: Administrative

HR0011-18-R-0002 Page 3 of 25

• Volume II: Technical Approach

• Volume III: Management Approach

• Volume IV: Past Performance

• Volume V: Price Proposal

The file shall be labeled with the solicitation number and company name, and all pages shall be marked “Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104.” It is the sole responsibility of the Offeror to ensure that the electronic files submitted are virus free and can be opened and read by the Government. Submissions shall not be locked or contain barriers to opening. All proposal documents shall be in Adobe (.pdf) format except portions of the price submission, which shall be in MS Excel 2016 (.xlsx) or compatible format.

Offerors must adhere to Volume numbers, format and/or templates, and page limitations.

Offerors shall include their company name or company name abbreviation and Volume number in the filename (e.g., COMPANY A, Vol II.). If stated page limitations are exceeded, then the excess pages will not be evaluated.

L-1.0.1 Proposal Transmittal Letter (Limited to 3 pages)

The proposal transmittal letter shall include the following:

a. Statement of Compliance. Each Offeror shall include a statement indicating complete compliance with this solicitation, or detailed analysis of any objections, exceptions, contingencies, or additions. Any objections, exceptions, contingencies, or additions shall also cross-reference the applicable paragraph(s) in this solicitation.

b. Proprietary Information. Each Offeror shall include a statement indicating whether the

Offeror intends to make use of any proprietary information.

c. Format and Content. Each Offeror shall describe any deviations in their proposal from the specified format of this solicitation.

d. Points of Contact. Identification of company primary and alternative point of contact to include title, email, and phone number.

L-1.0.2 Questions Due Date

Questions/clarifications to this solicitation are due by May 08, 2018 3:00 PM EDT. The DARPA Contracts Management Office (CMO) Contracting Officer (CO) is the sole point of contact for all questions under this solicitation. Offerors shall address all questions via email (Subject Line: Audit Readiness Questions –[Offeror Name]) to DARPA CMO CO at: HR0011- 18-R-0002@darpa.mil. Questions shall be completed in Attachment 3, Solicitation Question Matrix. The Government will post on Federal Business Opportunities an amendment to this solicitation with responses to all questions.

mailto:HR0011-18-R-0002@darpa.mil

HR0011-18-R-0002 Page 4 of 25

Offers are due by May 31, 2018 at 1:00PM EDT. For instructions on proposal submission see section (xv) on page 25 of this combined synopsis/solicitation.

L-1.1 VOLUME I: ADMINISTRATIVE (NO PAGE LIMIT)

This section shall include all solicitation documents as outlined below. If an Offeror fails to provide or adequately comply with any of the following requirements, they will be considered non-responsive and the rest of their proposal will not be evaluated.

L-1.1.1 Joint Venture/Teaming Arrangements

Each Offeror shall provide, if applicable, a summary describing the Joint Venture/Teaming Arrangement established for this solicitation and a document establishing that the parties are legally bound to such joint venture/teaming arrangements. The Government encourages teaming to the maximum extent practicable to meet solicitation requirements.

L-1.1.2 Security

Each Offeror shall provide proof from the Defense Security Service, Facility Clearance Branch that they possess no lower than an interim secret security clarance. Include a statement certifying Offeror’s ability to provide and maintain contractor personnel up to and including Secret eligibility.The Government will not sponsor facility clearances in anticipation of this award.

L-1.1.3 Organizational Conflict of Interest

The Offeror shall disclose complete information of any work performed by its company that is in any way associated with the contemplated acquisition, or that could result in a potential organizational conflict of interest.

Without prior approval or a waiver from the DARPA Deputy Director, in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 9.503, Waiver, a contractor cannot simultaneously provide scientific, engineering, technical assistance (SETA) or similar support and be a technical performer at DARPA. For this requirement where access is required to non-public information, in accordance with FAR 9.503, a contractor cannot simultaneously provide SETA work for other offices within DARPA and also be a contractor within Office of the Comptroller (COMP) without prior approval from the Contracting Officer. Therefore, all Offerors, as well as proposed subcontractors and consultants, must affirm whether they (its organizations and individual team members) are acting as technical performer or SETA contractor to DARPA through any potential or active contracts or subcontracts. All affirmations must identify the prime contract number(s).

Affirmations shall be furnished at the time of proposal submission.

All facts relevant to the existence or potential existence of organizational conflicts of interest (FAR 9.5, Organizational and Consultant Conflicts of Interest), shall be disclosed. The disclosure shall include a description of the action the Offeror has taken or proposes to take to avoid, neutralize, or mitigate such a conflict. If in the sole opinion of the Government, after full

HR0011-18-R-0002 Page 5 of 25 consideration of the circumstances, a proposal fails to fully disclose potential conflicts of interest and/or any identified conflict situation cannot be effectively mitigated, the proposal will be rejected without technical evaluation and withdrawn from further consideration for award.

If a prospective Offeror believes that any conflict of interest exists or may exist (whether organizational or otherwise) or has questions on what constitutes a conflict of interest, the Offeror should promptly raise the issue with DARPA by sending the Offeror’s contact information and a summary of the potential conflict to the Contracting Officer before time and effort are expended in preparing a proposal and mitigation plan.

The Offeror shall acknowledge the requirement for a Non-Disclosure Agreement in the format prescribed by Attachment 2 by including a signed copy within this Volume submission for itself as the prime contractor. After contract award, all individuals working on the contract will be required to sign the Non-Disclosure Agreement.

L-1.1.4 Representation, Certification, and other Statements of Offerors

Offerors shall complete representations, certifications, and acknowledgments and statements via the System for Award Management (SAM) (http://www.SAM.gov). A completed copy from SAM and any additional representations and certifications required by this solicitation shall be included in this Volume.

L-1.1.5 Terms and Conditions

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors. By submission of its proposal, the Offeror agrees to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements.

L-1.2 VOLUME II: FACTOR 1 – TECHNICAL APPROACH AND KEY PERSONNEL

(26 PAGE LIMIT)

This volume shall be specific, detailed, and complete as to demonstrate clearly and fully that the Offeror has a thorough knowledge of the work to be performed and knowledge of the problems inherent in performing the requirements of the PWS (Attachment 1). Statements that the Offeror understands, can, or will perform the listed functions without supporting information or narrative are inadequate. Paraphrasing the PWS or parts thereof, is similarly inadequate, as are phrases such as "standard procedures will be employed" or "well-known techniques will be used." This volume shall be written to enable evaluators to make a thorough evaluation as to whether the services offered adequately respond to the specific Government requirements and shall include the following:

L-1.2.1 Technical Approach: The Offeror shall provide a description of their understanding and approach for the tasks specified in PWS Sections 4.2 and 4.3. In addition, the Offeror shall identify risks to successful completion of the tasks in PWS Sections 4.2 and 4.3 and include

HR0011-18-R-0002 Page 6 of 25 methods of mitigation. This section shall be written to enable evaluators to make a thorough evaluation as to whether the Offeror understands and is capable of performing the requirements of the PWS.

L-1.2.2 Key Personnel: The Offeror shall submit resumes for the following key personnel:

Program Manager, Lead Senior Auditor (located in Indianapolis), and IT Auditor. Resumes are limited to two (2) pages each and shall include the following information:

(a) Full Name

(b) Contract Labor Category

(c) Security Clearance(s)

(d) Planned work location upon contract award

(e) Summary (i.e., Number of years/months and experience performing tasks required for the position)

(f) Work experience (beginning with the most recent position):

(1) Employer Name; Position(s) held; Dates held (month/year).

(2) Experience: Describe duties/tasks performed. Discuss in sufficient detail so as to permit comparison with contract requirements. Specific examples of work assignments, accomplishments, etc. shall be provided. Use action verbs to describe duties as opposed to passive verbs, e.g. "create", "perform", "research", "analyze" vs. "responsible for …"

(3) Explanation for any gaps in experience.

(g) Education and certificates:

(1) Degree(s); Date(s); Institution; Major/Minor

(2) Any professional certificates or certifications related to the requirements of the position

L-1.3 VOLUME III: FACTOR 2 – MANAGEMENT APPROACH (10 PAGE LIMIT)

The Offeror shall demonstrate a management approach for accomplishing all tasks in the PWS.

This approach should include the following:

L-1.3.1 Staffing Plan: The Offeror shall describe its plan to provide a high quality professional team that can respond to all functional areas in the tasks in the PWS provided as Attachment 1.

The staffing plan should clearly state the number of proposed full-time equivalents (FTEs), their labor category description, their PWS responsibilities, and requisite minimum qualifications.

Offerors may deviate from historical labor mix provided in Attachment 5 to include key personnel proposed. The Offeror shall not deviate from the three (3) key personnel to be evaluated in Section L-1.2.2, and shall include those positions in the staffing plan. Any proposed changes to Key Personnel will be captured in Attachment 1A prior to contract award.

L-1.3.2 Quality Control Plan: The Offeror shall describe its approach to provide high quality products on time for all tasks and deliverable outlined in the PWS located in Attachment 1.

L-1.3.2 Transition-In Plan: The Offeror shall describe its approach and steps required to transition-in. The plan shall identify any performance and schedule risks associated with the transition, and explain how the Offeror will mitigate those risks.

HR0011-18-R-0002 Page 7 of 25

L-1.4 VOLUME IV: FACTOR 3 – PAST PERFORMANCE (10 PAGE LIMIT)

Offerors may provide up to five (5) past performance information submissions, at least three (3) of the submissions must be from the prime contractor. All submissions shall relate to the tasks outlined in the PWS. Offerors shall submit Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) evaluations, if they are available. If CPARS evaluations are not available, Offerors may request their customers submit past performance questionnaires following the instructions below.

For all submissions, the Offeror shall provide a summary as outlined below in Section L-1.4.2 to explain what aspects of the contracts are deemed relevant and how it relates to the proposed effort. This may include responding to any negative past performance feedback to 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 Confidence” or “No Confidence” assessment, since the problems encountered may have been unavoidable, or an Offeror may have subsequently demonstrated the ability to overcome the problems encountered. The Offeror shall clearly demonstrate management actions employed in overcoming problems and the effects of those actions in terms of improvements achieved or problems rectified. This may give the Offeror a higher confidence assessment rating. For example, submittal of quality performance indicators or other management indicators that clearly support an Offeror has overcome past problems would assist the Government when assigning the confidence assessment rating.

Note: CPARS and/or questionnaire submissions do not count towards the 10 page limitation.

In the conduct of its past performance evaluation of Offerors, DARPA may use a variety of sources in addition to information provided by the Offeror. DARPA/CMO may use past performance information obtained from sources other than those identified by the Offeror. These sources may include, but are not limited to, CPARS, Past Performance Information Retrieval Systems (PPIRS), technical reports, commercial or any available published information, and information derived from present or past Government or commercial customers of the Offeror.

If the Offeror does not have any relevant past performance history, the Offeror must state in this section that they possess no relevant past performance. Those Offerors without relevant past performance history will not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably and will receive a “Neutral Confidence” rating on past performance.

DARPA reserves the right to determine which contracts submitted by the Offeror are relevant to the requirements and to utilize only those references.

L-1.4.1 Organizational Structure Change History

Many Offerors have acquired, been acquired by, or otherwise merged with other companies, and/or reorganized 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

HR0011-18-R-0002 Page 8 of 25 determine what past performance is relevant to this procurement. To facilitate this relevancy determination, include in this proposal Volume (if applicable), a “roadmap” describing all such changes in the company within the past 7 years. As part of this explanation, show how these changes impact the relevance of any efforts identified 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 Offeror, the Offeror’s “roadmap” should be specifically applicable to the efforts identified but general enough to apply to efforts on which the Government receives information from other sources. This information is required for the Offeror and any teaming partner(s) being used for past performance submissions.

The Government reserves the right to exclude sources due to conflicts of interest.

Note: Roadmap submissions does not have a page limit nor does it count towards the 10 page limit.

L-1.4.2 Past Performance Summary

Offerors shall provide a two-page summary for each CPARS or Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) submitted. The summary shall include the following:

(a) Offeror Name (Company/Division)

(b) Program Title

(c) Contract Specifics

a. Contract Number

b. Contract Type

c. Period of Performance

d. Original Contract Dollar Value

e. Current Contract Dollar Value

f. If the amounts in (d) and (e) above are different, provide a brief description of the reason

(d) Primary Government or industry points of contact (POC). Provide the name, office, address and telephone number for the current Program Manager, Contracting Officer (CO), Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO), and Contracting Officer Representative/Contracting Officer Technical Representative (COR/COTR).

(e) Identify if performed as prime or subcontractor and a brief description of the effort.

(f) Identify in specific detail for each contract listed, why or how this direct effort is considered relevant or similar to the effort required by this solicitation.

(g) Address adverse past performance, any technical, or other area about the program/contract considered unique.

HR0011-18-R-0002 Page 9 of 25

L-1.4.3 Past Performance Questionnaire Submission

When CPARS are not available, the Offeror shall request that their customer submit past performance information on the Past Performance Questionnaire found at Attachment 4. Each past performance questionnaire must correspond to the past performance experience cited in Offeror’s Past Performance Summary. The POCs identified on the questionnaire must be able to provide information on the quality of the Offeror’s performance.

• Any contracts/task orders contained in Past Performance Questionnaires must not have ended more than five (5) years prior to solicitation release.

• There is no page limit for the Past Performance Questionnaires submitted.

• The Offeror’s customers should send past performance information to HR0011-18-R- 0002@darpa.mil (Subject Line: Audit Readiness PPQ – [Offeror Name]) by the proposal due date.

L-1.4.4 Determination of Responsibility

Even though the assessment of past performance information as a specific evaluation factor is separate and distinct from the determination of responsibility required by FAR 9.1, Responsible Prospective Contractors, past performance information obtained herein may be used to support the determination of responsibility for the successful Offeror.

L-1.5 VOLUME V: FACTOR 4: PRICE

Offerors shall submit price proposals as required to perform the PWS along with a narrative supporting the price. Offerors shall submit their pricing via Attachment 6. Hourly rates shall use a forty-hour week for the conversion of salaried employees to the hourly basis and shall be inclusive of loading factors, (i.e., vacation, sick leave, holidays, overhead, General and Administrative rates (G&A), fee, etc.). Offerors are advised that prices should be:

• Reasonable;

• Reflect a clear understanding of the requirements; and

• Consistent with the various elements of the Offeror's technical proposal.

Offerors are advised that the Option to Extend Services clause at FAR 52.217-8 is included in this solicitation and will be included in the awarded contract. When proposing prices for base and options, Offerors should consider that the Government may choose to exercise the option to extend services at the end of any period of performance (base or option periods), utilizing the rates in effect during the period of performance in which the option is exercised. For example, if FAR 52.217-8 is exercised at the end of Option Period One (1), the rate(s) in effect for Option Period 1 will be the same rate(s) applicable for the extension period, regardless if FAR 52.217-8 is exercised for the full 6-month period or in increments. For purposes of evaluation, the Government assumes the option will be exercised at the end of Option Period 4.

HR0011-18-R-0002 Page 10 of 25

L-2.0 SUBMISSION FORMAT DETAILS

Each Volume shall be complete in and of itself. Unless otherwise specified, any form of presentation may be used, such as narrative, pictures, tables, graphs, schematics, logic, and other functional block diagrams to provide a concise description of information. The proposal shall be clear, concise, and shall include sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiating the validity of stated claims. The proposal shall not simply rephrase or restate the Government’s requirements, but rather shall provide convincing rationale to address how the Offeror intends to meet the areas to be evaluated. Offerors shall assume that the Government has no prior knowledge of their experience and will base its evaluation on the information presented in the Offeror’s proposal.

L-2.1 TEXT

Text shall be at least single-spaced, on an 8 1/2 x 11 inch page, with a minimum one-inch margin all around. Pages shall be numbered consecutively. Pages submitted in excess of the page limitations stated throughout this document will not be evaluated.

L-2.2 ILLUSTRATIONS AND TABLES

Legible tables, charts, graphs and figures should be used wherever practical to depict organizations, systems and layout, implementation schedules, plans, etc. These displays should be uncomplicated, legible, and shall not exceed 11 x 17 inches in size. For tables, charts, graphs and figures, the text shall be no smaller than 10-point font size.

L-2.3 FONT SIZE

Print shall be a minimum 10-point font size or a maximum 10 characters per inch (10-pitch, Times New Roman) spacing including graphic presentations and tables. Bolding, underlining, and italics may be used to identify topic demarcations or points of emphasis.

L-2.4 PAGE LIMITS

Page limits are identified below. The page limits do not include tables of contents, index, and/or glossary.

Volume Title Page

Limit Excluding

I Administrative No Limit N/A II Technical Approach 26 N/A III Management Approach 10 N/A IV Past Performance 10 CPARS Submission(s);

Questionnaire(s); Roadmap V Price No Limit N/A

L-3.0 EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS

HR0011-18-R-0002 Page 11 of 25

All information within the page limitations of the proposal is subject to evaluation. The Government will evaluate proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria set forth in section (ix), Addendum to FAR 52.212-2, Evaluation of Commercial Items, of this solicitation. This solicitation includes all evaluation criteria that the Government will use to evaluate an Offeror’s proposal. There are no unstated evaluation criteria. In evaluating an Offeror’s proposal under any of the evaluation criteria, the Government may use the solicitation and all of its attachments, including the Performance Work Statement, to evaluate the Offeror’s understanding, approach, and past performance to meet the Government's requirements. In evaluating an Offeror’s proposal, Government evaluators may also rely on their professional experience, including their experience with the Offeror.

The Government may reject any or all offers if such action is in the public interest and waive informalities and minor irregularities in offers received.

All proposal information is subject to verification by the Government. Falsification of any proposal submission, documents, or statements may subject the Offeror to civil or criminal prosecution under Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code (making false statements).

L-4.0 EXCEPTIONS/ASSUMPTIONS

Offerors are prohibited from modifying, in any way, shape, or form, any documents, printed or electronic, associated with this solicitation any amendment(s) thereto unless specifically authorized to do so. The electronic solicitation documents, as posted on http://www.fbo.gov, shall be the official documents for this solicitation.

L-5.0 USE OF NON-GOVERNMENT ADVISORS

Offerors are advised that technical and price data submitted to the Government in response to this solicitation may be released to non-Government advisors that have signed non-disclosure agreements for review and analysis. Any objection to disclosure shall be provided in writing to the Contracting Officer within 10 calendar days of solicitation issuance and shall include a detailed statement of the basis for the objection. The detailed statement shall identify the specific portions of the proposal the Offeror objects to disclosure to non-Government advisors.

L-6.0 INCURRING COSTS

DARPA/CMO shall not be obligated to pay any cost incurred by the Offeror in the preparation and submission of a proposal in response to this solicitation. The Offeror is advised that the Contracting Officer is the only person who can legally obligate DARPA/CMO for the expenditure of public funds in connection with this procurement.

(ix) 52.212-2 Evaluation—Commercial Items (October 2014), applies to this acquisition.

As an addendum to this provision, Offerors are instructed to submit proposals per the following instructions:

HR0011-18-R-0002 Page 12 of 25

ADDENDUM TO 52.212-2 EVALUATION—COMMERCIAL ITEMS (OCTOBER 2014)

– SECTION M

M-1.0 AWARD WITHOUT DISCUSSION

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 should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint.

The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. If the Contracting Officer 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 Contracting Officer 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.

M-2.0 EVALUATION CRITERIA AND BASIS FOR AWARD

(a) The contract resulting from this solicitation will be awarded to the responsible Offeror whose offer, conforming to the solicitation, is determined to provide the “best value” to the Government. Such offer may not necessarily be the proposal offering the lowest cost or receiving the highest technical rating.

(b) Proposals will be rated on the evaluation factors listed below. There are no subfactors. It should be noted that price is not an adjectivally weighted factor. When the Offerors are considered essentially equal in terms of technical capability, or when price is so significantly high as to diminish the value of the technical superiority to the Government, price may become relatively more important in determining best value to the Government. In summary, price/technical trade-offs will be made, and the extent to which one may be sacrificed for the other is governed only by the tests of rationality and consistency with the established evaluation factors.

(c) Priority Statement: The evaluation factors are listed in descending order of importance:

Technical Approach and Key Personnel (Factor 1), and Management Approach (Factor 2), Past Performance (Factor 3), and Price (Factor 4). The non-price evaluation factors (Factors 1-3), when combined, are significantly more important than Price (Factor 4). Factor 1 and Factor 2 will each receive an adjectival rating in accordance with Table 3.1. Factor 3 will receive an adjective rating in accordance with Table 3.2.4. Factor 4 will not be rated, but will be used in determining the best value to the Government. Although the non-price evaluation factors (Factors 1-3) when combined are significantly more important than Price (Factor 4), the relative importance of Price increases as proposals become closer in merit.

(d) Compliance with solicitation: Each offer will be evaluated to determine its acceptability. An offer will be considered acceptable when it demonstrates the Offeror's agreement, without exception or imposition of condition, to the terms and conditions of this solicitation, including attachments and documents incorporated by reference. An offer that takes exception to any of the terms and conditions of this solicitation, imposes additional

HR0011-18-R-0002 Page 13 of 25 conditions, or omits material information required by this solicitation may be considered to be unacceptable.

M-2.1 FACTOR 1 - TECHNICAL APPROACH AND KEY PERSONNEL

The Government will evaluate, for satisfying the requirements of PWS Sections 4.2 and 4.3, the Offeror’s approach and understanding; risk identification and mitigation; and the experience and education of proposed Key Personnel.

M-2.2 FACTOR 2 – MANAGEMENT APPROACH

The Government will evaluate how well the Offeror’s staffing plan, quality control plan, and transition plan show a sound approach and understanding to effectively manage resources necessary to provide quality services to meet the PWS.

M-2.3 FACTOR 3 – PAST PERFORMANCE

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s, and proposed subcontractors’, quality of past performance as it relates to the probability of successfully performing the contract requirements.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s past and recent performance on contracts similar to this effort in order to evaluate: (a) how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the Offeror is to the effort to be acquired through this acquisition; and (b) to determine how well the Offeror performed on the efforts. The Government will use the evaluations to make a determination as to the level of confidence the Government has in selecting a particular Contractor for award.

Offerors have been cautioned that in conducting the past performance evaluation, the Government may use data provided by the Offeror in its proposal and data obtained from other sources. While the Government may elect to consider data obtained from other sources, the burden of providing thorough and complete information rests with the Offeror.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror based on the Past Performance Questionnaires and any other information sources. Past performance is the degree to which the contractor has satisfied its customers. The Government evaluation will be subjective and based on the Offeror’s reputation with its customers. Some or all of the Offeror’s customers may be contacted and may be asked if they believe the Offeror was capable, efficient, and effective, if the Offeror’s performance conformed to the terms of the contract, if the Offeror was reasonable and cooperative, and if the customer was committed to customer satisfaction.

More information on how this factor will be evaluated to include recency, relevancy, and confidence ratings are contained in Section M-3.0 Evaluation Ratings Tables.

Past performance within the Department of Defense is considered more relevant than performance with other Government or commercial customers.

M-2.4 FACTOR 4 – PRICE

HR0011-18-R-0002 Page 14 of 25

Adequate price competition as described in FAR 15.305(a)(1) is anticipated to establish price reasonableness. If needed, the Government will also use FAR 15.404-1 proposal analysis techniques to determine price fair and reasonableness. The total evaluated price is the sum of the total prices submitted for (a) the base period, (b) all option periods, and (c) the six-month extension authorized by FAR clause 52.217-8. For purposes of determining the evaluated price for the six month 52.217-8 extension, the total price is calculated as one-half of the total price of the final option year. If needed, the Government will also use FAR 15.404-1 proposal analysis techniques to determine proposed maximum rates are fair and reasonable.

Proposing unrealistically low or high prices, initially or subsequently, may be grounds for eliminating an Offeror from competition either on the basis that the Offeror does not understand the requirements or has submitted an unrealistic proposal. Additionally, unbalanced pricing poses an unacceptable risk to the Government and may be a reason to reject an Offeror’s proposal. Proposals should be sufficiently detailed to demonstrate reasonableness. The burden of proof for price reasonableness rests with the Offeror. Offerors are advised to clearly show justification for unique practices that significantly lower costs.

M-3.0 EVALUATION RATINGS TABLES

M-3.1 FACTOR 1 (TECHNICAL APPROACH AND KEY PERSONNEL) AND

FACTOR 2 (MANAGEMENT APPROACH) EVALUATION RATINGS

Table 3.1 Combined Technical/Risk Rating Methodology Color Rating Adjectival

Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

HR0011-18-R-0002 Page 15 of 25

Strength - an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

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

Significant Weakness - a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

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

M-3.2 FACTOR 3 (PAST PERFORMANCE) EVALUATION RATING AND

METHODOLOGY

There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy (including context of data), and quality (including general trends in contractor performance and source of information).

M-3.2.1 RECENCY

The first is to evaluate the recency of the Offeror’s past performance. In determining recency, any efforts on contracts and/or tasks performed during the three (3) years immediately preceding the date of issuance of this solicitation will be determined recent.

M-3.2.2 RELEVANCE

The second is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the Offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the Offeror and its teaming partners whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. Higher relevancy will be assessed for contracts that are most similar to the effort, or portion of the effort, for which that contractor is being proposed.

There are four levels of relevancy as shown in Table 3.2.2. With respect to relevancy, past performance of greater relevancy will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance.

Table 3.2.2 Past Performance Relevancy Rating Methodology Adjectival Rating Description

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

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

HR0011-18-R-0002 Page 16 of 25

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.

M-3.2.3 QUALITY OF PRODUCTS OR SERVICES

The third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to establish the overall quality of the Offeror’s past performance (see FAR 15.304(c)(2)). The past performance evaluation conducted in support of a current source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the Offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the Offeror performed those past contracts. The Government will review all past performance information collected and determine the quality of the Offeror’s performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate these into the performance confidence assessment (see paragraph 3.1.3.3). A separate quality assessment rating is not required; rather, the past performance confidence assessment rating is based on the Offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance.

M-3.2.4 PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT

As a result of the recency, relevancy, and quality of performance, Offerors will receive a performance confidence assessment rating. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the technical and management factors, the resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance. Offerors for whom no recent/relevant performance information is available or the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful performance confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned, will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance and, as a result, will receive an “Neutral Confidence” rating for the past performance factor (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)).

Adverse past performance information is defined as past performance information that supports a performance confidence assessment of “Limited Confidence” or of “No Confidence” on any evaluation element or past performance information that includes any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal assessment system.

The Offeror and its applicable teaming partners will be evaluated as a team. The aggregate results of the survey of customers, and any other information deemed appropriate, may be analyzed to identify past performance trends.

Each Offeror’s proposal will receive a single performance confidence assessment for Factor 3 – Past Performance in accordance with the Table below:

HR0011-18-R-0002 Page 17 of 25

Table 3.2.4 Past Performance Confidence Rating Method Adjectival Rating Description

Substantial Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

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.

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.

The Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably

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.

M-3.3 FACTOR 4 (PRICE)

Factor 4 will not receive an adjectival rating, but will be evaluated in accordance with the parameters set forth in Section M-2.4.

M-4.0 FINAL PROPOSAL REVISION

If it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, the Government will make a Competitive Range determination. Evaluation notices may be issued to Offerors in the competitive range, responses will be requested from applicable Offerors, and discussions will be opened. Formal responses to evaluation notices (if applicable), discussion items, and final proposal revisions (FPR) will be considered in making the award decision.

Offerors should be aware that a complete understanding as to price, technical, and all terms and conditions of the proposed contract must exist between the Offeror and the Government at the conclusion of discussions, if held.

Any revision or non-concurrence to 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, percentages, rates, etc.); rather, it is intended to preclude any misunderstandings by the Government, which could result if new or revised terms and conditions are submitted in the FPR that have not been fully disclosed, discussed, and understood during discussions or negotiations. Hence, such new or revised terms and conditions are not solicited and, if submitted in the FPR, may render the offer unacceptable to the Government.

HR0011-18-R-0002 Page 18 of 25

If, upon submission of the FPR, the Offeror materially changes their proposal such that the price is no longer fair and reasonable or sufficient to keep them among the lowest priced Offerors or other factor inputs change their ranking among other Offerors, the Offeror may be removed from consideration for award.

(x) 52.212-3 Offeror Representations and Certifications—Commercial Items (Jan

2017), must be completed and a copy included with the offer, unless the Offeror’s System for Award Management record is current. If so, the Offeror must state this in their proposal.

(xi) 52.212-4 Contract Terms and Conditions—Commercial Items (Jan 2017), applies to this acquisition. The following addenda applies to this clause:

52.203-3 Gratuities APR 1984 52.203-6 Alt I Restrictions On Subcontractor Sales To The

Government (Sep 2006) -- Alternate I

OCT 1995

52.204-2 Security Requirements AUG 1996 52.204-4 Printed or Copied Double-Sided on Postconsumer

Fiber Content Paper

MAY 2011

52.204-9 Personal Identity Verification of Contractor Personnel

JAN 2011

52.204-10 Reporting Executive Compensation and First-Tier Subcontract Awards

OCT 2016

52.204-14 Service Contract Reporting Requirements OCT 2016 52.204-16 Commercial and Government Entity Code

Reporting

JUL 2016

52.204-18 Commercial and Government Entity Code Maintenance

JUL 2016

52.209-6 Protecting the Government's Interest When Subcontracting With Contractors Debarred, Suspended, or Proposed for Debarment

OCT 2015

52.209-7 Information Regarding Responsibility Matters JUL 2013 52.209-9 Updates of Publicly Available Information

Regarding Responsibility Matters

JUL 2013

52.209-10 Prohibition on Contracting With Inverted Domestic Corporations

NOV 2015

52.216-1 Type Of Contract APR 1984 52.219-6 Notice Of Total Small Business Set-Aside NOV 2011 52.219-14 Limitations On Subcontracting JAN 2017 52.222-3 Convict Labor JUN 2003 52.222-24 Preaward On-Site Equal Opportunity Compliance

Evaluation

FEB 1999

52.223-18 Encouraging Contractor Policies To Ban Text Messaging While Driving

AUG 2011

52.227-1 Authorization and Consent DEC 2007

HR0011-18-R-0002 Page 19 of 25

52.227-2 Notice And Assistance Regarding Patent And Copyright Infringement

DEC 2007

52.232-33 Payment by Electronic Funds Transfer--System for Award Management

JUL 2013

52.232-40 Providing Accelerated Payments to Small Business Subcontractors

DEC 2013

52.233-2 Service Of Protest SEP 2006 52.233-3 Protest After Award AUG 1996 52.233-4 Applicable Law for Breach of Contract Claim OCT 2004 52.237-1 Site Visit APR 1984 52.237-2 Protection Of Government Buildings, Equipment, And Vegetation

APR 1984

52.237-3 Continuity of Services JAN 1991 52.242-13 Bankruptcy JUL 1995 52.242-15 Stop-Work Order AUG 1989

52.217-8 OPTION TO EXTEND SERVICES

The Government may require continued performance of any services within the limits and at the rates specified in the contract. These rates may be adjusted only as a result of revisions to prevailing labor rates provided by the Secretary of Labor. The option provision may be exercised more than once, but the total extension of performance hereunder shall not exceed 6 months. The Contracting Officer may exercise the option by written notice to the Contractor within 30 days.

( of clause)

52.217-9 OPTION TO EXTEND THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT

(a) The Government may extend the term of this contract by written notice to the Contractor within 5 days; provided that the Government gives the Contractor a preliminary written notice of its intent to extend at least 30 calendar days before the contract expires. The preliminary notice does not commit the Government to an extension.

(b) If the Government exercises this option, the extended contract shall be considered to include this option clause.

(c) The total duration of this contract, including the exercise of any options under this clause, shall not exceed 66 months.

(end of clause)

52.252-1 SOLICITATION PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE (FEB 1998)

This solicitation incorporates one or more solicitation provisions by reference, with the same force and effect as if they were given in full text. Upon request, the Contracting Officer will

HR0011-18-R-0002 Page 20 of 25 make their full text available. The Offeror is cautioned that the listed provisions may include blocks that must be completed by the Offeror and submitted with its quotation or offer. In lieu of submitting the full text of those provisions, the Offeror may identify the provision by paragraph identifier and provide the appropriate information with its quotation or offer. Also, the full text of a solicitation provision may be accessed electronically at this/these address(es):

www.acquisition.gov

(end of provision)

52.252-2 CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE (FEB 1998)

This contract incorporates one or more clauses by reference, with the same force and effect as if they were given in full text. Upon request, the Contracting Officer will make their full text available. Also, the full text of a clause may be accessed electronically at this/these address(es):

www.acquisition.gov

(end of clause)

(xii) 52.212-5, Contract Terms and Conditions Required To Implement Statutes or Executive Orders—Commercial Items (DEVIATION 2013-O00019)(Nov 2017) applies to this acquisition.

(xiii) Additional Contract Requirements and…