HT003821R0001_Draft RFP 1.75.docx

HT003821R0001

Section SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

The cumulative amount of all task orders issued under this contract shall not exceed $*. This amount constitutes the “maximum” as that term is used in paragraph (b) of the “Indefinite Quantity” clause of this contract.

Pricing information submitted in Attachment 4, WF3 Price Spreadsheet will be incorporated by reference into any contract resulting from this solicitation to serve as the basis for negotiation of task orders issued under the contract, as well as the unilateral ordering of “catalog” priced orders in accordance with Attachment X, Ordering Guide.

As referred to in paragraph (b) of the “Indefinite Quantity” clause of this contract, the contract minimum quantity is a total of $* worth of orders.

*To Be Determined in Final RFP.

Lot 1 Line Items

Design-to-Outcome 1

FFP

Assess as-is operations and prepare a detailed “design-to-outcome” approach, proposal, and specifications, in an iterative, bilateral user-centered design process. These artifacts will be utilized as the basis for the award of Core Task Order 1.

FOB: Destination

NET AMT

Core Task Order 1

Managed solution to operate and transform Workforce 3.0 core capabilities and operational activities to provide continuation of services for mid and back office functions for all PEO DHMS and FEHRM product lines. Execute the organizational digital transformation in accordance with the performance metrics and outcomes agreed upon during Design-to-Outcome 1.

NET AMT

Incubator Task Order A1

Independent survey of the current PEO DHMS/FEHRM organizational activities and product lines vis-a-vis the health technology landscape, and broader software product domain, and report on PEO DHMS strengths, opportunities, and blockers as it compares to best-in-class methodologies.

NET AMT

Incubator Task Order B1

Independent survey of the current PEO DHMS/FEHRM organizational activities and product lines vis-a-vis the health technology landscape, and broader software product domain, and report on PEO DHMS strengths, opportunities, and blockers as it compares to best-in-class methodologies.

NET AMT

Each

Lot 1 Incentive 1

Incentive payment in accordance with Clause 52.212-4 Addendum 2.

NET AMT

Each

Lot 1 Gamechanger 1

Gamechanger payment in accordance with Clause 52.212-4 Addendum 3.

NET AMT

FFP

Assess as-is operations and prepare a detailed “design-to-outcome” approach, proposal, and specifications, in an iterative, bilateral user-centered design process. These artifacts will be utilized as the basis for the award of Core Task Order 2.

NET AMT

FFP

Managed solution to operate and transform Workforce 3.0 core capabilities and operational activities to provide continuation of services for mid and back office functions for all PEO DHMS and FEHRM product lines. Execute the organizational digital transformation in accordance with the performance metrics and outcomes agreed upon during Design-to-Outcome 2.

NET AMT

FFP

Independent survey of the current PEO DHMS/FEHRM organizational activities and product lines vis-a-vis the health technology landscape, and broader software product domain, and report on PEO DHMS strengths, opportunities, and blockers as it compares to best-in-class methodologies.

NET AMT

FFP

Independent survey of the current PEO DHMS/FEHRM organizational activities and product lines vis-a-vis the health technology landscape, and broader software product domain, and report on PEO DHMS strengths, opportunities, and blockers as it compares to best-in-class methodologies.

NET AMT

Each

FFP

NET AMT

Each

FFP

NET AMT

FFP

Assess as-is operations and prepare a detailed “design-to-outcome” approach, proposal, and specifications, in an iterative, bilateral user-centered design process. These artifacts will be utilized as the basis for the award of Core Task Order 2. Transition WF3 operational activities from previous Awardee to provide continuation of services for mid and back office functions for all PEO DHMS and FEHRM product lines.

NET AMT

FFP

Assess as-is operations and prepare a detailed “design-to-outcome” approach, proposal, and specifications, in an iterative, bilateral user-centered design process. These artifacts will be utilized as the basis for the award of Core Task Order 3.

NET AMT

FFP

Managed solution to operate and transform Workforce 3.0 core capabilities and operational activities to provide continuation of services for mid and back office functions for all PEO DHMS and FEHRM product lines. Execute the organizational digital transformation in accordance with the performance metrics and outcomes agreed upon during Design-to-Outcome 3.

NET AMT

FFP

Independent survey of the current PEO DHMS/FEHRM organizational activities and product lines vis-a-vis the health technology landscape, and broader software product domain, and report on PEO DHMS strengths, opportunities, and blockers as it compares to best-in-class methodologies.

NET AMT

FFP

Independent survey of the current PEO DHMS/FEHRM organizational activities and product lines vis-a-vis the health technology landscape, and broader software product domain, and report on PEO DHMS strengths, opportunities, and blockers as it compares to best-in-class methodologies.

NET AMT

Each

FFP

NET AMT

Each

FFP

NET AMT

FFP

Assess as-is operations and prepare a detailed “design-to-outcome” approach, proposal, and specifications, in an iterative, bilateral user-centered design process. These artifacts will be utilized as the basis for the award of Core Task Order32. Transition WF3 operational activities from previous Awardee to provide continuation of services for mid and back office functions for all PEO DHMS and FEHRM product lines.

NET AMT

FFP

Assess as-is operations and prepare a detailed “design-to-outcome” approach, proposal, and specifications, in an iterative, bilateral user-centered design process. These artifacts will be utilized as the basis for the award of Core Task Order 4.

NET AMT

FFP

Managed solution to operate and transform Workforce 3.0 core capabilities and operational activities to provide continuation of services for mid and back office functions for all PEO DHMS and FEHRM product lines. Execute the organizational digital transformation in accordance with the performance metrics and outcomes agreed upon during Design-to-Outcome 4.

NET AMT

FFP

Independent survey of the current PEO DHMS/FEHRM organizational activities and product lines vis-a-vis the health technology landscape, and broader software product domain, and report on PEO DHMS strengths, opportunities, and blockers as it compares to best-in-class methodologies.

NET AMT

FFP

Independent survey of the current PEO DHMS/FEHRM organizational activities and product lines vis-a-vis the health technology landscape, and broader software product domain, and report on PEO DHMS strengths, opportunities, and blockers as it compares to best-in-class methodologies.

NET AMT

Each

FFP

NET AMT

Each

FFP

NET AMT

FFP

Assess as-is operations and prepare a detailed “design-to-outcome” approach, proposal, and specifications, in an iterative, bilateral user-centered design process. These artifacts will be utilized as the basis for the award of Core Task Order 4. Transition WF3 operational activities from previous Awardee to provide continuation of services for mid and back office functions for all PEO DHMS and FEHRM product lines.

NET AMT

FFP

Assess as-is operations and prepare a detailed “design-to-outcome” approach, proposal, and specifications, in an iterative, bilateral user-centered design process. These artifacts will be utilized as the basis for the award of Core Task Order 5.

NET AMT

FFP

Managed solution to operate and transform Workforce 3.0 core capabilities and operational activities to provide continuation of services for mid and back office functions for all PEO DHMS and FEHRM product lines. Execute the organizational digital transformation in accordance with the performance metrics and outcomes agreed upon during Design-to-Outcome 5.

NET AMT

FFP

Independent survey of the current PEO DHMS/FEHRM organizational activities and product lines vis-a-vis the health technology landscape, and broader software product domain, and report on PEO DHMS strengths, opportunities, and blockers as it compares to best-in-class methodologies.

NET AMT

FFP

Independent survey of the current PEO DHMS/FEHRM organizational activities and product lines vis-a-vis the health technology landscape, and broader software product domain, and report on PEO DHMS strengths, opportunities, and blockers as it compares to best-in-class methodologies.

NET AMT

Each

FFP

NET AMT

Each

FFP

NET AMT

FFP

Assess as-is operations and prepare a detailed “design-to-outcome” approach, proposal, and specifications, in an iterative, bilateral user-centered design process. These artifacts will be utilized as the basis for the award of Core Task Order 5. Transition WF3 operational activities from previous Awardee to provide continuation of services for mid and back office functions for all PEO DHMS and FEHRM product lines.

NET AMT

FFP

Assess as-is operations and prepare a detailed “design-to-outcome” approach, proposal, and specifications, in an iterative, bilateral user-centered design process. These artifacts will be utilized as the basis for the award of Core Task Order 6.

NET AMT

FFP

Managed solution to operate and transform Workforce 3.0 core capabilities and operational activities to provide continuation of services for mid and back office functions for all PEO DHMS and FEHRM product lines. Execute the organizational digital transformation in accordance with the performance metrics and outcomes agreed upon during Design-to-Outcome 6.

NET AMT

FFP

Independent survey of the current PEO DHMS/FEHRM organizational activities and product lines vis-a-vis the health technology landscape, and broader software product domain, and report on PEO DHMS strengths, opportunities, and blockers as it compares to best-in-class methodologies.

NET AMT

FFP

Independent survey of the current PEO DHMS/FEHRM organizational activities and product lines vis-a-vis the health technology landscape, and broader software product domain, and report on PEO DHMS strengths, opportunities, and blockers as it compares to best-in-class methodologies.

NET AMT

Each

FFP

NET AMT

Each

FFP

NET AMT

FFP

Assess as-is operations and prepare a detailed “design-to-outcome” approach, proposal, and specifications, in an iterative, bilateral user-centered design process. These artifacts will be utilized as the basis for the award of Core Task Order 6. Transition WF3 operational activities from previous Awardee to provide continuation of services for mid and back office functions for all PEO DHMS and FEHRM product lines.

NET AMT

Lot 2 Line Items

Each

Accelerator Task Order

Assess as-is operations and prepare a detailed “design-to-outcome” approach, proposal, and specifications, in an iterative, bilateral user-centered design process. These artifacts will be utilized as the basis for the award of Ad-hoc Task Order 1.

NET AMT

Each

Ad-hoc Task Order

Managed solution to execute the project agreed upon during Accelerator Task Order 1.

NET AMT

Each

Lot 2 Gamechanger

NET AMT

The schedule identifies line items in two lots. Ordering periods, as described in “52.217-9” for these lots are as follows:

Lot 1:

Lot 2:

INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE TERMS

Supplies/services will be inspected/accepted at:

DELIVERY INFORMATION

*To be determined on individual task orders. See 52.212-4 Addendum 1 and 52.217-9

CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

*Fill-ins to be provided on individual task orders.

**Clause only applicable to Lot 1

CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY FULL TEXT

52.212-1 INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS--COMMERCIAL ITEMS (JUN 2020) (TAILORED)

1.0 Solicitation Information:

This solicitation seeks competitive offers and is partially set-aside for small businesses, as delineated on the SF-1449 cover sheet (including NAICS and size standards).

Lot 2 (see schedule for line items) awards are set-aside for Small Businesses (SB) only.

Three sets of instructions are provided; 1) General Instructions that apply to both Lots, 2) Lot 1 Instructions, and 3) Lot 2 Instructions.

2.0 General Instructions.

Points of Contact (POC): Below are the only points of contact for this solicitation. All questions or concerns shall be submitted through to the Contracting Officer (KO) and Contract Specialist (KS), using the submission instructions below. All proposal submissions shall be submitted using the instructions in Section 2.2 below. If a problem with AcquServ arises, notify the KO and KS immediately through the emails listed below. Service of protest to the Agency shall be submitted to the e-mail addresses below. No other correspondence sent to email will be read or answered.

Table 1: Point of Contacts

2.1. Instructions to Offerors (ITO)

2.1.1 An Offeror must propose on all items in either Lot 1 or Lot 2 to be eligible for award in the respective Lot. Offerors are not permitted to submit offers in both lots, or to permit more than one offer in either Lot. Prime contractors for Lot 1 may not participate in Lot 2 as subcontractors or team members. Alternate proposals will not be accepted. If an Offeror (1) fails or refuses to assent to any of the terms and conditions of this RFP, (2) proposes additional terms or conditions, (3) conditions its proposal with assumptions or (4) fails to submit any of the information required by this solicitation, then the Government may consider the offer to be unacceptable and therefore ineligible for contract award.

The proposal shall be clear, concise, and shall include sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiating the validity of stated claims. Offerors shall assume the Government has no prior knowledge of its facilities and experience and will base its evaluation on the information presented in the Offeror’s proposal.

Offerors are reminded digital transformation at the scale contemplated by this solicitation are extremely difficult to achieve. Even in the commercial sector, most such efforts fail. As a result, the required quality level of performance for this effort will be extremely high. Accordingly, the Government may consider any failure to comply with these instructions to be indicative of what could be expected from an Offeror during contract performance and may consider it a weakness of the proposal in the appropriate factors. Statements such as “will comply,” “noted and understood,” “in accordance with best/industry practices/standards,” etc., without supporting narrative are not acceptable. Cursory responses or responses that merely reiterate or paraphrase the solicitation language will not be considered to satisfy the requirements of the RFP.

2.1.2 System for Award Management (SAM): Offerors will not be eligible to receive a contract award unless they are registered in SAM.

2.1.3 Lot Definitions. WF3 consists of two (2) Lots covering differing levels of qualifications for each; separated by level of complexity, value, structure and definition of problems for the applicable mission partner.

2.1.3.1 Lot 1 – Lot 1 consists of task orders necessary to establish one, seamless team accountable for achieving the specified transformation and growth metrics over a specified length of time to be continuously evaluated. This Lot 1ncludes the work necessary to ensure that all in-scope functions necessary for operation of the “world class technology” organization are performed in accordance with the agreed upon designs. Lot 1 awardees are accountable to the overall delivery of the new workforce paradigm.

2.1.3.2 Lot 2 – Lot 2 awardees will perform the work necessary to solve finite, specific projects that cover the full spectrum of complexity and difficulty, and may result in the delivery of events, reports, studies, processes, or operations. Rather than focusing on the full breadth of transformation and operation over a specified duration, and on an annual basis like Lot 1, Lot 2 orders will identify one or more specific problems to be solved over flexible durations, when they are identified. Lot 2 orders may independently supplement the functions and transformation activities occurring in Lot 1 from time-to-time. It is expected that more than one Lot 2 order will be active, solving their respective problems, at any given time.

2.1.3.2 Prime Offerors shall submit to the AcquServe system, a letter that declares its intent to submit a prime offer that identifies the Lot 1t will propose on. Letters must be received no later than [To be provided in Final RFP]. The declaration letters will be considered dispositive, and Offerors will not be permitted to submit proposals in any Lot for which they did not declare, including failing prior to the deadline.

2.2 Proposal Submission Instructions for AcquServe.

Offerors shall upload all required proposal documentation and forms to the DHMS-WF3 AcquServe Vendor Portal (https://acquserve.edgeaws.noblis.org/DHMS-WF3). Electronic submissions must be complete no later than TBD, as shown in Table 2. Paper copies, email submissions, and/or any other type of proposal submission will NOT be accepted. In progress uploads will be considered late if not COMPLETED by this deadline. Late proposals will be processed IAW FAR Provision 52.212-1(f) Late Submissions, Modifications, Revisions and Withdrawals of Offers. Offerors are cautioned to begin uploads well in advance of the deadline to avoid any technical issues. If Subcontractors submit encrypted proposal documentation to Prime Offerors, the Subcontractor must also send a separate email with the encryption keys to the Government POCs specified in Table 1 above no later than TBD as shown in Table 2. The Government will notify the Prime Offeror within 1 business day of receipt of Subcontractor encrypted information.

DHMS-WF3 AcquServe Vendor Portal. A prerequisite for accessing the AcquServe Vendor Portal is all Offerors must own and register with one of the following:

1. A Department of Defense Common Access Card (CAC) or U.S Government issued Personal Identity Verification (PIV) card.

2. A Department of Defense External Certificate Authority (ECA) Medium Assurance Certificate. Offerors may purchase an ECA through IdenTrust (https://www.identrust.com/certificates/dod-eca-programs) or Operational Research Consultants (https://eca.orc.com).

To obtain access to the AcquServe Vendor Portal, all Offerors must fill out and submit a Designated AcquServe User Form found in Attachment 7 to DHMS-WF3.VendorHelp@noblis.org. Once your User Form has been accepted by the Noblis AcquServe Admins, you may submit your credentials from the prerequisite by visiting https://acquserve.edgeaws.noblis.org/DHMS-WF3 and following the directions on the AcquServe Vendor Portal. Registrations will not be accepted after TBD.

Specific instructions on the access and use of the AcquServe Vendor Portal can be found in Attachment 8 - DHMS-WF3 AcquServe User Guide. Questions regarding the AcquServe Vendor Portal may be sent to Noblis via e-mail at DHMS-WF3.VendorHelp@noblis.org or by calling the AcquServe Vendor Portal Help Desk at (703) 610-2040.

2.4 Communications.

Exchanges between the Government and Offerors will be controlled by the KO and KS and utilize the AcquServe Portal. Offerors must submit all communications via AcquServe Portal, except for live oral discussions.

For Lot 1, the Government intends to establish a competitive range and hold discussions with only those Offerors in the competitive range. Multiple competitive range determinations may be made, at any time, with or without proposal revisions.

For Lot 2, the Government intends to award without discussions or establishment of a competitive range.

When discussions are held for Lot 1, additional instructions for the resulting exchanges will be provided.

2.4.1 Correction Potential of Proposals

Offerors are advised to submit initial proposals that are well defined and clearly acceptable without additional information, additional or substitute pages. The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential" of any deficiency. The judgment of such "correction potential" is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal does not meet the Government's requirements and is not considered correctable, the Offeror may be omitted from the initial competitive range or otherwise eliminated from competition. Accordingly, initial proposals should contain the Offeror’s best terms rather than relying on negotiations. Offerors are further advised to submit proposals that are fully and clearly acceptable without additional information.

2.4.2 Evaluation Notices (EN). ENs may be used for clarification or communication purposes as well as discussions. Responses to the ENs will be evaluated in accordance with the evaluation criteria stated herein. Failure to respond to ENs will eliminate the Offeror from further evaluation and consideration for award. No written ENs will be issued for oral presentations.

2.4.3 Interim Proposal Revisions (IPR). After discussions are held, at the conclusion of discussions, the KO will provide each Offeror remaining in the competitive range an opportunity to submit an IPR. The KO will establish a common cut-off date for receipt of IPRs, and submission instructions via amendment to the solicitation. IPRs will be evaluated in accordance with the evaluation criteria stated herein. After receipt of the IPR, the Government intends to make award decisions without obtaining further revisions, except those described in 2.4.4.

2.4.4 Responsibility and Final Proposal Revisions (FPR). After the award decisions are made, the Government will conduct responsibility negotiations, with the selected awardees, to resolve final matters of special responsibility standards, such as Organizational Conflict of Interest mitigations and initial task order details for the Design-To-Outcome task order (such as final revisions to the PWS and QASP. Once negotiations are completed, the KO will close discussions and request FPRs. FPRs will not be permitted to make substantive changes to the proposal, but are intended only to reflect the ratification language of final responsibility negotiations with the Government. The FPR amendment will contain the appropriate instructions for submission of FPRs.

2.5 Amendments to Solicitation.

If this RFP is amended, all terms and conditions that are not amended remain unchanged. Offerors shall acknowledge receipt of any amendment to this request by the day and time specified in the amendment(s).

2.6 Period of Acceptance of Offers.

The Offeror agrees to hold its proposal firm for 120 calendar days from the date specified for receipt of offers.

2.7 Solicitation Question Instructions [TO BE PROVIDED in DRAFT RFP 2]

2.7.1 Discrepancies. If an Offeror believes that the requirements in these instructions contain an error, omission, or are otherwise unsound, the Offeror shall immediately notify the KO in writing with supporting rationale as well as the remedies the Offeror is asking the KO to consider as related to the omission or error.

3.0 Proposal Content. The purpose of these instructions is to prescribe the format of proposals and describe the approach for the development and presentation of proposal information. Proposals shall be submitted in accordance with these instructions or will be considered non-compliant.

3.1 Page Limitations. All proposals must comply with the page limitations identified in the applicable tables below. Page limitations shall be treated as maximums. If exceeded, the excess pages will not be read or considered in the evaluation of the proposal. Title pages, cover pages, tables of contents, tab indexing, glossaries, and lists of tables and figures are not included in page limitations. Legible tables, charts, graphs and figures may be used to depict organizations, systems and layout, implementation schedules, plans, etc., when described under specific factors below.

3.2 Page Size and Format for Written Proposal Submission. A page is defined as one 8.5” x 11” electronic page with 1” margins and no smaller than a 10-point font size. This page size limitation does not apply to the knowledge check submission in Subfactor 2.2. The font shall be Times New Roman. NOTE: The font type and size limitation applies to all narrative elements, graphics, art, figures, imported charts, charts, and any other graphical representation that includes text. Pages shall be numbered sequentially by volume. Pages shall include line numbering to support review.

3.3 Title Page (not included in the page count). Each volume must include a title page. The title pages must show:

· Solicitation Number

· Name, address, telephone numbers and e-mail address of the Offeror

3.4 Cross-Referencing. The proposal volumes shall be written on a stand-alone basis so that its contents may be evaluated without cross-referencing to another volume. Information required for proposal evaluation which is not found in its designated volume will be assumed to have been omitted from the proposal.

3.5 Indexing. Each volume shall contain a detailed Table of contents to delineate the subparagraphs within that volume. Tab indexing shall be used to identify sections and will not count against page limitations IAW paragraph 3.1.

3.6 Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms. Each volume shall contain a glossary of all abbreviations and acronyms used, with an explanation for each. As stated above in paragraph 3.1, glossaries do not count against the page limitations for their respective volumes.

3.7 Compliant. Documents submitted in response to this solicitation must be fully compliant to and consistent with the terms and conditions of the solicitation or may result in being rejected as noncompliant and not being evaluated.

4.0 Lot 1 Proposal Instructions

Table 3 provides a list of each volume, documents, page limits, and file formats for Lot 1 only.

Table 3: Lot 1 Proposal Volumes

Volume I: Factor 1 - Gate Criteria

Subfactor 1.2: Product Prowess

Subfactor 1.3: Talent Management

Volume II: Factor 2 – Transformation Approach/Non-Price

Volume III: Factor 3 – Behavior Model/Non-Price

Volume IV: Factor 4 – Price Proposal

(# = consecutive numbering as needed)

Volume V: Factor 5 – Challenge Scenario

Volume VI: Contract Documents

WF3_L1_OfferorName_QASP_[task order name] WF3_L1_OfferorName_CDRLs_[task order name] WF3_L1_OfferorName_XX_[task order name]

NOTE: Volumes 1, 2, and 4 shall consist of the information specified for each evaluation factor and Subfactor listed below. No cost or pricing information shall be included in these Volumes (1, 2, or 4) unless specifically directed to do so.

Factor 1: Gate Criteria Evaluation Factors Lot 1. For the purposes of Factor 1 (including Subfactors), Gate Criteria, the government intends to focus on essential criteria that differentiate WF3 from more typical Defense acquisitions. The Government encourages Offerors to re-use existing data to prepare their submission. All responses must fully address the query within the allotted attachment space. The Offeror shall provide the following information for Factor 1:

Subfactor 1.1: Disruptive Outcomes:

Using Team Disruptive Outcomes Experience Reference Form in Attachment 2, the Prime must demonstrate experience in achieving profound improvement in a relatively short time period by successfully engineering business transformations (i.e. Digital Transformation, Process Transformation, Market Transformation, etc.) for some of its clients. Teammate experience will not be accepted. These transformations must have resulted in significant process improvements leading directly to game changing increases in business value implemented broadly across a large technology organization for a sustained period of time, within five (5) years prior to RFP release.

Firms that excel at achieving game changing improvement understand the importance of quantifying value, i.e., specifying credible leading and lagging measures of success, establishing baseline scores, and verifying achievement of objectives.

Subfactor 1.2: Product Prowess:

Using Team Product Prowess Experience Reference Form in Attachment 2, the Offeror must demonstrate experience of successful experience in all stages – incubation through profitability – of bringing a new and significant technology product to the commercial market.

The term “significant new technology product” means that the company intends for the product to differ significantly in its characteristics or intended uses from those previously produced or create a new market for itself. By contrast, a new feature aims only to create a greater market share in the company’s existing product area. By definition, a successfully commercialized new product will create a new revenue stream that leads to increased profitability within a planned time frame. For WF3, a successful product is defined by a time to market within 2 years and profitability within 3 years.

Subfactor 1.3: Talent Management:

Using Team Talent Management Reference Form in Attachment 2, a team member must demonstrate they have both a shared culture that rewards innovation and focus on achieving outcomes and a broad expertise in relevant aspects of product management in external organizations. Team member experience will not be accepted for filling critical talent gaps.

FACTOR 2: TRANSFORMATION APPROACH (LOT 1)

Offerors shall separately address the following three (3) subfactors:

Subfactor 2.1: Knowledge Check:

The proposal shall include a visual model that:

(1) Adheres to the following formatting requirements: does not exceed one electronic page sized at 22 inches by 17 inches (1584p width, 1224p height); contains text no smaller than a 10-point font size; utilizes industry-standard fonts accessible under Government-Furnished Equipment (or rasterized as an image); contains text and graphics must are fully legible; accessible as a PDF format; does not exceed 25 megabytes. The visual model may contain graphics, supporting narrative, and other data necessary to demonstrate the requirements outlined below.

(2) Demonstrates understanding of the scope of WF3 activities and outlines the Offeror’s organizational design for the WF3 effort in accordance with Section X: Knowledge Check. Models that simply restate the capabilities of the WF3 Periodic Table may represent a lack of understanding for the overall PEO 3.0 vision. Models that reorganize, add to, or subtract from the WF3 Periodic Table are encouraged insofar as the final proposed model represents a comprehensive coverage of required support.

(3) Demonstrates how the Offeror will drive digital transformation and foster innovation across PEO DHMS in accordance with Section X: Knowledge Check.

Subfactor 2.2: Small Business Participation:

Offerors shall submit an approach that the Government will evaluate for compliance with the small business utilization goals provided below. For purposes of this Factor, the total contract value is [To be provided in Final RFP]. Offerors may claim small business credit for subcontractors to the third tier.

(1) The following reflects minimum WF3 Subcontracting Goals for this procurement and shall be used in the development of the Offeror’s submission for Factor 2, Subfactor 2.2.

vii. Non-traditional Business - 10%

The above minimum goals are provided as a baseline for small business participation. The percentages shown in (i) and (vii) above are the percentage of the total contract value; the percentages shown in (ii) through (vi) are percentages of (i). The Offeror shall propose small business participation for this specific requirement.

(2) Offerors shall provide a table identifying all proposed subcontractors up to the third tier individually by name with addresses, business type (Other Than Small Business, Small Business, Small Disadvantaged Business, Women-Owned Small Business, Veteran-Owned Small Business, Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business, HUBZone Small Business, and Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Minority Institutions) as determined by the SBA size standard for the specific work being subcontracted; the principal service/supply being provided by the subcontractor; NAICS Code; and the complexity of the service/product provided. The table shall describe the extent of small business participation for this procurement with percentage and dollar amounts for specific small business categories. The table shall also identify Non-traditional businesses and provide the same information.

(3) Offerors shall include evidence, such as binding letters of commitment subject only to contract award, of the Offeror’s ability to meet the small business participation goals.

(4) Offerors shall include an approach to achieve these participation goals throughout the life of the contract.

(5) Offerors shall provide evidence of meeting small business goals on prior contracts. If, historically, the Offeror has not met/exceeded small business goals, an explanation shall be provided on what actions were taken or will be taken to meet the goals on WF3.

FACTOR 3: BEHAVIOR MODEL (LOT 1)

The Offeror shall demonstrate the following:

(1) An understanding of the human nature requirement and the linkage between motivation and desired behavior across Contractor, Civilian, and Military personnel in order to achieve a successful transformation as a component of WF3 scope.

(2) Describe how the Subfactor 2.1 organizational design will support positive WF3 behavior and adapt into a future innovative state as WF3 evolves with the overall PEO 3.0 vision.

(3) Describe approach to motivate the desired behavior in WF3 team members (companies and individuals) to facilitate a productive team environment that maximizes the capabilities of the full team in fostering and maintaining an innovative culture.

(4) Describe an approach to financially incentivizing team member personnel across the engagement to seek game-changing outcomes.

(5) Describe an ability to shape WF3 personnel and Government personnel perceptions, behaviors, and understanding of the overall PEO 3.0 vision.

FACTOR 4: PRICE PROPOSAL (LOT 1)

Offerors shall provide sufficient information to substantiate prices presented in the proposal, indicating a realistic and complete understanding of the requirements of this solicitation. Offerors shall include the same level of substantiation for all proposed Prime and subcontractor elements of cost. The burden of proof as to credibility rests with the Offeror.

If the Offeror wants to provide additional information not specifically required in the Price Volume, the information may be supplied in the Offeror’s format. All data provided by the Offeror, whether in a contractor format or Government format, shall be traceable throughout the various sections of the proposal.

For the purposes of preparing Price proposals, Offerors shall assume the date of contract award will be April 2021.

The Offeror shall provide prices for all Task Orders in Box A in Figure X-Y.

FIGURE X-Y IS TO BE PROVIDED IN DRAFT RFP 2.

The Offeror shall provide the following information to support the Price evaluation:

1. The required worksheet(s) shall only be completed for the Prime and first tier subcontractors covering the elements in this section. The Cost-Price Worksheet and all Bases of Estimate (BOEs) must contain all required information. However, subcontractor BOEs containing proprietary rate information may be submitted encrypted so long as the Government is provided the necessary keys under separate cover. Detailed instructions for completing the Cost-Price Worksheet are included within the Attachment. The worksheet(s) in the Cost-Price Worksheet allow Offerors the flexibility to tailor methodology and computations and to add worksheets as necessary to show additional detail or computations. If formulas provided in the spreadsheet are modified, identify changes by highlighting all cells with changed formulas, and describe the changes as well as the reasons for those changes in the supporting narrative.

2. The Cost-Price Worksheet shall provide proposed prices in the provided Microsoft Excel format, specifying, at a minimum, the following information for each element, as applicable:

a. Source: The source of the proposal (i.e., Vendor name)

b. Proposal Date: The as-of date of the proposal (i.e., submission date)

c. Requirement # (The requirement for which the proposal is submitted)

d. Requirement Description: Include a descriptive identifier corresponding to the Requirement #.

e. Type (Labor, material, travel, or ODCs.)

f. Whether the element constitutes a Commercial Item (per FAR x.y.z)

g. Task Order (IAW data validation on the Workstreams_Price IDs worksheet)

h. Period #

i. Period Start Date

j. Period Quantity (the number of Period Units associated with the given element’s TO)

k. Period Unit (the unit of time to measure the duration of the Period)

l. CLIN

m. CLIN Description

n. PWS

o. WBS (Aligned to PEO DHMS WBS and MIL-STD-881, but detailed to a sufficient level to substantiate prices)

p. WBS Description

q. Workstream/Price ID (per requirements on the ‘Workstream_Price ID’ worksheet)

r. Workstream/Price ID Description

s. Entity (Identify by name which entity is performing the staff-hours, providing the material, or traveling)

t. Small Business Type (Large, …)

u. Material Description

v. Material Quantity

w. Total Cost

x. Profit % (Consistent with ‘Fee Proposal’ Worksheet)

y. Profit (Calculated as Cost * Profit %)

z. Total Amount (Calculated as Cost + Profit)

For each row in the Cost-Price Worksheet, reference a single applicable IDIQ PWS section/subsection, single Task Order, single Period, single CLIN, single Workstream/Price ID, single WBS element, and a single Entity.

NOTE: The Cost-Price Worksheet includes a worksheet requiring the Offeror to provide its Price proposal aligned to the PEO DHMS Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) included as an attachment. The Offeror shall follow the format of this WBS; cost elements shall be provided to at least the WBS level indicated in this Attachment. The Offeror shall expand the WBS as necessary to meet MIL-STD-881 instructions for the Contractor WBS (CWBS) and submit it as part of this Volume. If the Offeror’s estimate is developed at levels below those specified, the Offeror shall provide those lower level estimates and ensure traceability to the WBS as well as the CLIN structure. The WBS included as an attachment is an all-encompassing WBS which may include elements not relevant to a specific proposed solution. Offerors are not expected to propose a Price against every element of the WBS if that element is not applicable to their unique solution. This can be specified in the CWBS definitions. The Offeror’s estimate will utilize the structure of the PEO DHMS WBS, but the resulting Price proposal will actually be submitted via the Cost-Price Worksheet.

3. Information to explain and substantiate the Offeror’s Price proposal. This shall consist of a BOE Narrative and supporting worksheets, and include:

a. Ground Rules Offerors shall provide a narrative as a part of the Price volume detailing specific ground rules. Ground rules concern the form and content of the estimate. Ground rules also establish the scope of the estimate, distinguishing specifically between costs that are included and those excluded from the analysis.

b. Bases of Estimate (BOEs)

BOEs are only required for line items 0001 and 0002.

It is incumbent on the Offeror to provide enough detail in quantitative and supporting information to allow the Government to assess the reasonableness, completeness, and realism of proposed prices. The BOE shall also include an audit trail sufficient for the Government to reconstruct the proposed estimate and evaluate the application of the data. The BOE shall reference and provide traceability to the applicable PWS section/subsection and CLIN. The BOE shall include profit for all Firm-Fixed-Price CLINs. The BOE shall explain the rationale behind all prices presented, choices made, assumptions used, etc. The BOE shall be consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the Offeror’s technical proposal.

It is highly recommended that Offerors include a declarative statement in the BOE that any assumptions contained in the proposal are provided to explain how the Offeror developed its proposed pricing and are not intended to be an exception or qualification to the requirements of the solicitation. Descriptions of the work to be performed shall be explicit regarding what work will or will not be included in the effort.

If presenting analogies to a historical solution, the Offeror must establish that the analogous historical solution is in fact similar enough to the proposed solution to constitute a valid analogy. When using historical or analogous data, the Offeror shall describe why the solution is comparable to the proposed solution. The BOEs shall include reasons and justification for any adjustments made to programmatic, technical and actual cost data for the historical solution. The Offeror shall document the basis for any adjustments applied to the historical data, such as complexity factors and normalization methods, to reflect the characteristics of the proposed solution. Differences as well as similarities between the historical solution and the proposed solution shall be explained.

Any inconsistency, whether real or apparent, between…