Amendment 01 to Request for Proposal (RFP) HT9425-24-R-0047.pdf

COMBINED SYNOPSIS/SOLICITATION FOR COMMERCIAL ITEMS

for the

Intellectual Property (IP) and Technology Transfer (T2) Database SW and Related Services

Amendment 01 changes are highlighted in yellow

The Request for Proposals (RFP) is being issued using Simplified Acquisition Procedures under the authority of FAR 13.5 - Simplified Procedures for Certain Commercial Products and Commercial Services.

1. GENERAL INFORMATION

Document Type: Combined Synopsis/Solicitation

Solicitation Number: HT9425-24-R-0047

Amendment Number 01

Posted Date: July 01, 2024

Proposal Due Date: August 5, 2024 no later than 8:00am Eastern Time

Set Aside: Unrestricted

NAICS Code & Size Standard: 513210, $47 Million

Product Service Cost (PSC) 7A21

This is a combined synopsis/solicitation for commercial products or commercial services prepared in accordance with the format in subpart 12.6, as supplemented with additional information included in this notice. This announcement constitutes the only solicitation;

proposals are being requested and a written solicitation will not be issued.

The solicitation document and incorporated provisions and clauses are those in effect through Federal Acquisition Circular 2024-04.

All interested parties shall provide a proposal in accordance with the solicitation instructions and requirements detailed below no later than August 5, 2024, at 8am Eastern Time (ET). The Government intends to award one (1) Firm Fixed Price contract (FFP) with Cost-type (COST) Other Direct Costs (ODCs) Contract Line Item Numbers as a result of this solicitation. Please refer to pages 2-10 of this document for additional instructions to Offerors. The Offeror is responsible for ensuring receipt of its proposal submission.

2. ISSUING OFFICE & POINT OF CONTACT

The U.S. Army Medical Research Acquisition Activity (USAMRAA), 808 Schreider Street, Fort Detrick, MD 21702

The primary Point of Contact (POC) is Ms. Lisa Kuhns (Contract Specialist), via email at lisa.z.kuhns.civ@health.mil. Only email communications shall be accepted. No telephone calls will be accepted.

3. DESCRIPTION OF REQUIREMENT

The United States Army Medical Research Acquisition Activity (USAMRAA) located at the Fort Detrick in Frederick, MD is seeking to procure licenses for a Commercial Patent Docketing and Database Software System for the United States Army Medical Research and Development Command (USAMRDC) Office of the Staff Judge Advocate (OSJA). The docketing and patent database system (also referred to as IP and T2 database system) shall provide tools for data capture, reporting, document generation, and establishing workflows, as further defined within the Minimum Essential Characteristics incorporated into this solicitation via the Performance Work Statement (Attachment 1). Additionally, this procurement includes associated customer support services, periodic software and system updates, training, and some flexibility for configuration and customization.

USAMRDC requests a Firm-Fixed Price (FFP) contract with COST ODCs for the purchase of licenses as a subscription-based software model and support services for all tasks included in the Performance Work Statement (PWS).

This requirement is a follow-on to contract W81XWH-18-P-0188 and subsequent bridge contract HT9425-24-P-0056 with Anaqua, Inc.

4. PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE

The estimated Period of Performance for the resulting contract is:

Base Period 30 September 2024 - 29 September 2025 Option Period 1 30 September 2025 - 29 September 2026 Option Period 2 30 September 2026 - 29 September 2027 Option Period 3 30 September 2027 - 29 September 2028 Option Period 4 30 September 2028 - 29 September 2029

Note: Start date is approximate

5. INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

This section specifies the format and content that Offerors shall use in this Request for Proposals (RFP). The intent is not to restrict the Offerors in the manner in which they will perform their work but rather to ensure a certain degree of uniformity in the format of the responses for evaluation purposes. Offerors shall submit a proposal that is legible and comprehensive enough to provide the basis for a sound evaluation by the Government. Information provided shall be precise, factual, and complete. Legibility, clarity, completeness, and responsiveness are of the utmost importance.

Proposals will be evaluated on the basis of best value tradeoff source selections procedures.

Only one award is anticipated resulting from this RFP; however, the Government reserves the right to withdraw, modify, or eliminate various aspects of the requirement determined to be too costly or impractical prior to award.

The provision at FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors-Commercial Products and Commercial

Services, applies to this acquisition (and is incorporated by full text under Section 9 of this document). The following pages serve as an addendum to that provision.

5.1. ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION: Proposals shall be electronically submitted via e-mail to the Issuing Office POC identified on the previous page. The Offeror’s submission shall include two separate parts: a Non-Cost/Price proposal and a Cost/Price proposal. The Non-Cost/Price proposal shall be submitted in MS Word or searchable PDF format. The Cost/Price proposal shall be submitted in MS Word or MS Excel format. Zip files and other application formats are not acceptable as the firewall utilized by the Government Issuing Office does not authorize or accept these file types.

The Offeror’s proposal submission shall include the solicitation number (HT9425-24-R-0047) in the subject line of the email. Failure to submit all documents concurrently and in accordance with these instructions may render a proposal as non-responsive and therefore unacceptable/unawardable.

The Offeror is responsible for ensuring receipt.

5.2. ADMINISTRATIVE FORMAT INSTRUCTIONS: The Non-Cost/Price proposal is limited to fifty-five (55) pages. Pages should be numbered consecutively throughout the document and not by sections. For any sections of a proposal with a defined page limit, pages exceeding the specified limit will not be evaluated. The following sections are not subject to the 55 page limit listed above:

Table of Contents, Title page, Contractor POC Cover Page, Task 1 Draft Plan (Plan to Obtain Authorizations for Operation and Access by the

End User), shall not exceed 7-pages, Task 2 Draft Implementation Plan (shall not exceed 7- pages), Task 3 Draft Plan (Plan for Data Audit, Legacy Data Upload, and Data

Validation), shall not exceed 7-pages, Training Plan (shall not exceed 7-pages) Draft Program Management Plan (shall not exceed 7- pages), Draft Quality Control Plan (shall not exceed 7- pages), Past Performance References (Exhibit B, shall not exceed 6- pages), Small Business Participation Plan (Exhibit C, shall not exceed 7- pages), OCI Certification Form (Exhibit D) and OCI Mitigation Plan (if necessary), Small Business Subcontracting Plan (shall not exceed 7- pages), Amendment Acknowledgement and Fill-In Provisions

Proposal content shall be no smaller than 12-point, Times New Roman font with 1” margins on the top, bottom and sides. Exhibits, graphics, charts, captions, etc., are exempt from the 12-point font requirement; however, the font shall be no smaller than size 10-point.

5.3. SUBMISSION OF QUESTIONS: All questions regarding this RFP shall be submitted to Ms. Lisa Kuhns via email (lisa.z.kuhns.civ@health.mil) no later than 1:00 PM Eastern Standard Time, July 15, 2024. No telephone calls will be accepted.

The Issuing Office anticipates releasing a summary of all submitted questions and the Government’s corresponding responses as an update to the SAM.gov posting.

5.4. NON-COST/PRICE PROPOSAL CONTENT INSTRUCTIONS: The Non-Cost/Price proposal shall clearly reflect the Offeror’s approach to meeting or exceeding all of the Operating Characteristics, Performance Characteristics, and Functional Characteristics/Capabilities for the required system and executing the performance requirements identified in the PWS. The Offeror’s Non-Cost/Price proposal, including any supporting documentation, is to be clear and concise. The level of effort proposed to meet the support requirements of this RFP must be consistent with the proposed solution outlined in the Non-Cost/Price proposal. The proposal must fully document and substantiate a cross mapping of the Cost/Price approach as it equates to the Non-Cost/Price proposal.

The Offeror’s Non-Cost/Price proposal shall contain the following:

(1) TECHNICAL APPROACH: The Offeror shall submit a written technical approach, presented in a clear and logical order, which effectively demonstrates a clear understanding of all of the PWS requirements and how the proposed approach is likely to yield the required results within the required time frame.

As stated within the PWS, all Offerors shall propose an “on-premises” solution that shall reside on a local server under the management of USAMRDC Information Management / Information Technology (IM/IT) personnel.

Additionally, Offerors may propose either a contractor-cloud hosted solution or a

Government-cloud hosted solution which could be a proposal advantage and could result in a proposal strength(s) as the Government may also consider solutions with multiple hosting arrangements (e.g., both cloud-hosted and on the local server or “on-premises”).

Furthermore, Offerors shall demonstrate the methodology and flexibility (i.e., a “how” you will meet the requirement(s)) that will be used in accomplishing any resultant award. Statements such as “meets the intent of,” “we already do this in other contracts,” or “we intend to meet the requirements” and the like, will not suffice for evaluation purposes and will be considered non-responsive and not eligible for award.

The Government is establishing three “Go, No-go” subfactors as part of the Technical Approach factor. The Offeror’s proposal shall clearly demonstrate and will be evaluated to ensure that the proposed solution conforms to the following required Operating and Performance Characteristics:

Go, No-go #1 (Mandatory to All Proposed Solutions): Ability to propose an “on premises” solution that shall reside on a local server under the management of USAMRDC IM/IT personnel. Regardless of any additional solution proposed (i.e.

Contractor and/or Government cloud hosted) an on-premises solution is mandatory for all vendor proposals.

Go, No-go #2 (Applicable only if proposing a Contractor Hosted Cloud Solution):

The system shall be hosted by a FedRAMP authorized managed cloud service provider (MCSP) that will allow for reciprocity approvals via DHA. The Offeror shall possess (at a minimum) FedRAMP approval at moderate baseline for the proposed software.

Go, No-go #3 (Mandatory to All Proposed Solution(s)): System shall provide for unique and single sign-on capability for users. System shall integrate with server host authentication procedures (use of DoD Common Access Card).

The Offeror’s proposal shall demonstrate that the proposed solution(s) meets these “go, no-go” subfactors at time of proposal submission. Failure to demonstrate these subfactors will result in a non-responsive proposal, will be deemed deficient, and will be excluded from further evaluation and award consideration.

Additionally, the Offeror shall describe, in detail, its technical approach and overall ability to provide the required commercial database system (also referred to as the docketing and patent database system as well as the Intellectual Property (IP) and Technology Transfer (T2) database) and related services for the USAMRDC Office of the Staff Judge Advocate (OSJA). The description shall, at a minimum, specifically address the following:

(a) The Offeror shall clearly demonstrate how it proposes to deliver to the Government the required IP and T2 Database that meets (or exceeds) ALL of the Minimum Essential Characteristics and Capabilities which includes Operating Characteristics (to include those applicable to only to cloud-based solutions) and Performance Characteristics (PWS Sections 3.1. through 3.2.).

(b) The Offeror shall address how the proposed solution is capable of adhering to the

Functional Characteristics/Capabilities (PWS Section 4.) to the greatest extent possible. Any “gaps” in functionality/capabilities should be addressed to indicate whether, and the means by which, such Functional Characteristics/Capabilities may be achieved through the performance of the contract.

(c) The Offeror shall describe, in detail, its technical approach and overall ability to provide the related Support Services in addition to the commercial database system.

The description shall, at a minimum, specifically address the Offeror’s approach for the following:

o Obtaining all necessary authorizations for Operation and Access by the End User (PWS 5.1.)

Included in the Offeror’s approach for this task, the Offeror shall provide a Draft Plan to Obtain Authorizations for Operation and Access by the End User (the Offeror shall title this the “Task 1 Draft Plan”). This draft plan is not subject to the non-cost/price page limitation of 55 pages; however, it shall not exceed seven (7) pages. This draft plan shall outline, at a minimum, the tasks and steps necessary for the process of obtaining all necessary authorizations as stated within PWS 5.1., to include the Risk Management Framework. This draft plan may be included as an attachment to the Non-Cost/Price proposal.

o Installing, Implementing, Configuring and Testing the Proposed System (PWS 5.2.)

Included in its approach, the Offeror shall provide a Draft Implementation

Plan to address this task (the Offeror shall title this the “Task 2 Draft Implementation Plan”). This draft plan is not subject to the non-cost/price page limitation of 55 pages; however, it shall not exceed seven (7) pages.

This draft plan shall outline, at a minimum, the tasks and steps necessary to install, implement, and test the software and system as stated within PWS 5.2. Additionally, this draft plan shall include information pertaining to configuring, implementing, and testing user accounts and permissions, activating and synchronizing system components, testing of data through upload and retrieval, and otherwise implementing the system as typically commercially configured (as stated within PWS 5.2.(c)). This draft plan may be included as an attachment to the Non-Cost/Price proposal.

o Performing Data Audit, Uploading and Validating Legacy Data (PWS 5.3) Included in its approach, the Offeror shall provide a Draft Plan for Data

Audit, Legacy Data Upload, and Data Validation to address this task (the Offeror shall title this the “Task 3 Draft Plan”). This draft plan is not subject to the non-cost/price page limitation of 55 pages; however, it shall not exceed seven (7) pages. This draft plan shall outline, at a minimum:

(1) Steps for migrating the Government’s legacy data into the system,

(2) Process necessary to verify operation of (fully loaded) system as well as data integrity, and

(3) The Offeror’s approach for on-going data quality assurance process.

This draft plan may be included as an attachment to the Non-Cost/Price proposal.

o Providing Customer Support (PWS 5.4) The Offeror is not required to provide a separate plan to address its approach to performing this task. However, the proposal shall demonstrate a clear understanding of this task and how the Offeror intends to perform this task.

o Conducting Training (PWS 5.5) Included in its approach, the Offeror shall provide a Training Plan that demonstrates how this task will be accomplished. This plan is not subject to the non-cost/price page limitation of 55 pages; however, it shall not exceed seven (7) pages. This plan shall address, at a minimum, training sessions to be offered for both basic users and system administrators which will be conducted within the Government's live system and utilizing Government data, as stated within PWS 5.5.

o Supporting Outgoing Transition Tasks (PWS 5.7) The Offeror is not required to provide a separate plan with its proposal submission. However, the Offeror shall demonstrate a clear understanding of this task and describe how the Offeror intends to perform this task.

Additionally, the Offeror shall provide an estimated timeline to perform the Outgoing Transition Support task. Outgoing transition shall occur concurrently with the final option period and prior to expiration of any resultant contract.

(d) The Offeror shall address the degree to which the proposed solution addresses any of the Optional Modules/Features listed under PWS 5.6. The Offeror may also propose additional modules/features including the ability to customize any standard modules / features that may not otherwise be addressed when responding to the Government’s Minimum Essential Characteristics and Capabilities or Functional Characteristics / Capabilities. Note that the modules/functionalities listed within PWS 5.6.1., 5.6.2, and 5.6.3. are those that are desired by the Government but not required. Therefore, failure to demonstrate any or all of those capabilities WILL NOT be considered a proposal disadvantage. Rather, a proposal that demonstrates such capabilities could be considered an advantage which could result in a proposal strength.

(2) MANAGEMENT AND QUALITY CONTROL APPROACH: The Offeror shall submit written information that describes both the Offeror’s Management Approach as well as its Quality Control Approach, sufficiently detailed to enable the Government’s evaluation, that will lead to the successful accomplishment of the requirement. The proposal shall describe how the Offeror will meet and comply with the quality standards established in the PWS and identify (as applicable) processes, procedures, and metrics which are likely to result in a successful outcome, within schedule.

To address this factor, the Offeror shall include, as an attachment to its Non-Cost/Price proposal, the following draft plans:

(a) Draft Program Management Plan (PMP). The draft PMP shall not exceed seven (7) pages. At a minimum, the draft PMP shall document how the Offeror will meet and comply with the requirements established in the PWS. If applicable, this draft PMP shall also describe the approach to coordinating, directing, and effectively managing all subcontractors, as stated within PWS 8.3.

(b) Draft Quality Control Plan (QCP). The draft QCP shall not exceed seven (7) pages.

At a minimum, the draft QCP shall document how the Offeror will identify, prevent, and ensure non-recurrence of defective services, and outline the procedures that the Contractor will use to maintain quality, timeliness, responsiveness, customer satisfaction, as stated within PWS 8.2.

(3) PAST PERFORMANCE REFERENCES: The Offeror shall submit no more than three (3) total past performance references of relevant contracts/orders within the past three (3) years for itself and any major proposed subcontractors (defined as 20% or more of the proposed effort). The contracts/orders may be past or current as long as the performance did not end more than three (3) years prior to the closing date for this solicitation. The contracts/orders may have been with Federal, State and/or City agencies and commercial customers. The completed Exhibit

B is not subject to the non-cost/price page limitation of 55 pages; however, the Past Performance References Form shall not exceed six (6) pages.

(a) Reference Content: It is the Offeror’s responsibility to provide valid, current and verifiable references. References should be made aware that they may be contacted by a Government representative and that they should be prepared to respond completely and in a timely manner. Offerors shall use Exhibit B Past Performance References to provide the requested information.

(b) POCs: The reference POCs provided in Exhibit B must be either Government personnel (civil service or military) or employees of private sector clients (such as public or private sector firms) to whom the Offeror has provided services.

Information provided by or for POCs who work directly for the Offeror’s company, or indirectly (i.e. in a prime or subcontractor relationship), will NOT be considered relevant. Offerors shall ensure that contact information for designated references is accurate and up-to-date.

(c) Information from Other Sources: The Government may consider information obtained through other sources to evaluate past performance. This includes, but is not limited to the System for Award Management (SAM), Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), and the Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS), in addition to any information obtained from the references provided within the Offeror’s completed Exhibit B.

(4) SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION: The Offeror shall submit a Small Business

Participation Plan (SBPP) that articulates how Small Businesses will participate through performance as a small business prime Offeror and/or through Small Business subcontracting in the performance of the proposed acquisition. Offerors shall provide a complete SBPP in accordance with Exhibit C: Small Business Participation Proposal (Format). Offerors should propose the level of participation of small businesses (as small business prime Offerors or small business Subcontractors) in the performance of the acquisition relative to the following small business objectives/goals.

The Department of Defense (DoD) has established small business goals as an assistance to assure small business receives a fair portion of DoD awards. The goal(s) for this procurement should be as follows and are in terms of the percentage of the value of the total acquisition:

Small Business: 10% of the total proposed value

The Offeror may provide further documentation regarding commitments to Small Business for this effort including teaming agreements within the completed Exhibit C or as part of the non-cost/price proposal.

Note: All Offerors (both large and small businesses) shall submit a SBPP.

The Government recognizes that the goal above for the SBPP is stated as a percentage of the total (proposed) contract value; whereas the goals included in the small business subcontracting plan

(below) are stated in terms of a percentage of total subcontract dollars.

Note: If a contractor proposes less than the requested goal, the contractor must provide supporting rationale as to why they cannot meet the established goal (i.e. proprietary nature of SW and no SB contracting opportunities available, etc.) for Government consideration during the evaluation process.

(5) ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST (OCI) CERTIFICATION: The Offeror shall complete the attached OCI Certification Form (Exhibit D) and provide (if necessary) an OCI Avoidance or Mitigation Plan. These documents are excluded from any Non- Cost/Price proposal page limits.

(6) SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PLAN (SBSP): The SBSP shall be a separate document from the Small Business Participation Plan. All Offerors, except U.S. Small Businesses, shall submit a SBSP that addresses all factors in the basic and alternate II version of the clause at FAR 52.219-9 and DFARS 252.219-7003. The SBSP shall be a separate document from the SBPP and will be used to determine contractor responsibility. In addition to the SBSP, Offerors shall certify compliance with FAR Clause 52.209-6 and provide sufficient information for the Government to determine responsibility of its proposed subcontractors. NOTE: U.S.

Small Businesses are NOT required to submit a SBSP.

The Small Business Subcontracting Plan is not a requirement for evaluation in source selection, but rather, a requirement for award to a large business (i.e., other than small business concern) and will be incorporated into any resultant Contract.

The SBSP goals for this procurement are: Small Business (SB): 10.0%

The Offeror shall submit a SBSP that addresses the following mandatory elements as found in FAR 52.219-9 paragraph (d):

Goals (% based on total planned subcontracting dollars for each Small Business category) Total dollars planned to be subcontracted (overall and by category) Description of principal types of supplies/services to be subcontracted (total and by category) Description of method used to develop subcontract goals Description of method used to identify potential Small Business sources A statement as to whether or not the Offeror included indirect costs in establishing subcontracting goals and the methodology used to determine proportionate share of indirect costs for each category (if included)

Name of individual administering subcontracting program and a description of duties Description of efforts to ensure Small Businesses have an equitable opportunity to compete for subcontracts

Assurances that the offer will:

o Cooperate in surveys o Submit reports, as required o Submit Individual Subcontract Report (ISR) and/or the Summary Subcontract

Report (SSR), as required o Make a good faith effort to subcontract for the supplies/services, from the small business concern(s) identified, in the same or greater scope, amount, and quality used in preparing and submitting the bid or proposal o Provide the Contracting Officer (KO) with a written explanation if the Contractor fails to achieve the subcontracting for the supplies/services, from the small business concern(s) identified, in the same or greater scope, amount, and quality used in preparing and submitting the bid or proposal o Not prohibit a subcontractor from discussing with the KO any material matter pertaining to payment to or utilization of a subcontractor o Pay its small business subcontractors on time and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the underlying subcontract

Record Keeping: description/procedures/process "Flow down" clauses and reporting requirements o 52.219-8 (Utilization of SB Concerns) o ISR / SSR (as required)

Note: Subcontracting goals are calculated as a percentage of subcontracted dollars.

(7) CONTRACTOR POC: The Offeror shall include a cover page to the Non-Cost/Price proposal which provides the Offeror’s company name/address, telephone number, CAGE Code and Unique Entity ID (UEI) number. The Offeror shall provide a Point of Contact who is authorized to hold discussions/negotiations with the Government and who has the full authority to bind the Offeror to a contract. This cover page is excluded from any non-cost/price proposal page limits. Required POC information includes: First name, last name, title, e-mail address, phone number, and level of authority.

(8) GOVERNMENT FURNISHED PROPERTY: The PWS addresses GFP. The Government will provide up to three (3) laptop computers to support performance of this contract. At its discretion, the Government may provide additional equipment, such as monitors, keyboards, and printers. Attachment 3 has been included with this RFP for informational purposes; however, Offerors are not expected to provide any GFP attachments with their proposals. Under the resultant contract, the contractor is responsible for all costs related to making the property available for use, such as payment of all transportation, installation or rehabilitation costs.

(9) FILL-IN PROVISIONS: The Offeror shall complete and submit all applicable fill-in full-text provisions found in Sections 8. and 9. of this solicitation.

(10) AMENDMENT ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: If amendments to this solicitation are issued, the Offeror shall submit with their Non-Cost/Price proposal an acknowledgement of receipt for each amendment.

The Offeror’s Cost/Price proposal shall contain the following:

5.5. COST/PRICE PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS: The Offeror shall provide a cost/price proposal, using Exhibit E, which includes firm-fixed pricing (for a 12-month base period and four 12-month option periods) for all items and services detailed in this solicitation. Offerors shall specify the unit price and total price for all Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs). See “(2) PRICING SHEET” below for further details. In accordance with FAR Provision 52.204.22 – Alternative Line Item Proposal, the Offeror is invited to propose an alternative line item structure for this solicitation to ensure that the resulting contract structure is economically and administratively advantageous to the Government and the Contractor. The Offeror’s price will be evaluated to ensure fairness, reasonableness and completeness. Include any applicable discounts to the Government.

The Offeror’s cost/price proposal shall contain the contractor’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. The Offeror’s cost/price proposal shall include any applicable assumptions.

The Government intends to evaluate cost/price proposals and award a contract on the basis of trade off best value without discussions but reserves the right to hold discussions if later deemed by the Contracting Officer to be necessary. The Government reserves the right to make no award as a result of this solicitation.

The resultant contract will contain FAR Clause 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services. By submitting a proposal for this requirement, the Contractor agrees to this inclusion of this clause in the resulting contract. The amount evaluated under clause FAR 52.217-8 will be calculated using the cost/price established for the last option period, prorated six (6) months versus a 12-month pricing scenario.

(1) OTHER DIRECT COSTS: The Government is providing “Plugged” Not to Exceed (NTE) amounts for travel costs to support training, installation and/or troubleshooting of the proposed system. The plugged values have been pre-populated in Exhibit E: Pricing Sheet.

(2) PRICING SHEET: The Offeror’s proposal shall include a completed pricing sheet in the attached format (see Exhibit E). This pricing sheet shall reflect the Offeror’s proposed database solution and all associated costs to perform the PWS. In order that the Government may adequately evaluate the fairness and reasonableness of all CLINS reflective of the support requirements, the Offeror shall propose the Total Cost/Price for completing each of the following PWS tasks:

Task 1: Obtain all necessary authorizations for Operation and Access by the End User

(Anticipated CLIN No. 0002)

Task 2: Install, Implement, Configure and Test System (Anticipated CLIN No. 0003)

Task 3: Data Audit, Upload Legacy Data and Validation (Anticipated CLIN No.

0004)

Task 6: Implementation of Optional Modules (Anticipated CLIN Nos. 0011; 1008;

2008; 3008; and 4008)

The Offeror shall also propose annual fixed monthly and fixed hourly prices (not dependent upon variable labor costs), respectively, for each of the following reoccurring services as unit prices within Exhibit E:

Task 4: Customer Support; and

Task 5: Training

Note: The Government has provided an estimated “Plugged” quantity of 50 hours per year for anticipated training needs within Exhibit E

The Offeror shall ensure mathematical computations are correct. Errors in addition or multiplication may be considered a reason to remove the Offeror’s proposal from the competition.

(a) Offerors shall propose on all contract line items, either by price, “Not Applicable” or “NSP” (Not Separately Priced). A line item price left blank will be considered incomplete and may not be considered for award.

(b) Offerors shall define which labor categories will be performed by a subcontractor(s) along with the subcontractor(s) company name. The Offeror shall provide a detailed breakdown, the same level at which the prime Offeror submitted, of the proposed labor rates for all proposed subcontractor labor.

(c) Offerors’ proposals shall remain valid for a minimum of 120 days from the due date for submission of proposals.

5.6. OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION:

(1) SYSTEM FOR AWARD MANAGEMENT: In accordance with FAR 52.204-7, Offerors must have and maintain an active System for Award Management (SAM) registration to be eligible for award.

(2) ALTERNATE PROPOSALS: In accordance with FAR 52.212-1, Offerors may submit multiple offers presenting alternative terms and conditions, including alternative line items, or alternative commercial items for satisfying the requirements of this solicitation. Each offer submitted will be evaluated separately.

(3) INCUMBENT: This is an existing requirement. The incumbent is Anaqua, Inc.

under current contract number HT9425-24-P-0056.

6. EVALUATION FACTORS & BASIS OF AWARD

FAR 52.212-2 Evaluation – Commercial Products and Commercial Services (NOV 2021) The Government intends to award a Contract resulting from this solicitation without discussions to the responsible Offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. Offerors shall provide their best, complete proposal upon initial submission. The Government reserves the right to hold discussions if deemed necessary by the Contracting Officer. The Government reserves the right to award all or some of the Optional Items (e.g., Optional Modules). A Technical Evaluation Panel will evaluate all proposals based on the evaluation criteria set forth below.

Evaluations will be conducted utilizing the Best Value Tradeoff process.

a. BASIS FOR AWARD: Award of a Contract will be made on a competitive best value basis, using “best value tradeoff” among Cost/Price and Non-Cost/Price factors. Therefore, the Government may elect to award to other than the lowest priced Offeror, or other than the Offeror with the highest rated Non-Cost/Price proposal. The Non-Cost/Price evaluation factors numbered in descending order of importance, are as follows:

(1) Technical Approach,

(2) Management and Quality Control Approach,

(3) Past Performance,

(4) Small Business Participation

The Non-Cost/Price factors are more important than Cost/Price. As the collective Non-Cost/Price factors begin to reach equality in the evaluation, Cost/Price becomes a more important factor in the tradeoff analysis.

After each of the above Non-Cost/Price factors is rated individually, an overall rating will be assigned collectively to these factors. If any of the above Non-Cost/Price evaluation factors receives an individual rating of “Unacceptable,” the collective overall rating will also be “Unacceptable.” Only proposals receiving an overall rating of “Acceptable” or higher will be considered for award. In addition, Cost/Price proposals that are not found fair and reasonable will not be considered for award.

Government evaluators will not assume that the Offeror possesses any capability or knowledge unless it is specified in the proposal. Therefore, the Offeror is expected to submit sufficient information in response to the RFP to allow for the evaluation of its proposal.

Each of the evaluation factors will be rated as follows:

FACTOR 1 – TECHNICAL APPROACH: First and foremost, the Government requires that all Offerors propose an “on-premises” solution that shall reside on a local server at Fort Detrick, Maryland under the management of USAMRDC IM/IT personnel. In addition to the required on-premises solution, the Government will entertain an additional solution of either a contractor-cloud hosted solution or a Government (DHA) cloud hosted solution. The Government may also consider solutions with multiple hosting arrangements (e.g., both cloud-hosted and on the local server or “on-premises”). Such additional solutions (in addition to the on-premises solution) may result in a proposal strength if the proposal demonstrates an advantage of the Government or an ability to exceed the specified performance or capability requirements.

Prior to performing a full evaluation, the Government will screen all proposals based upon three “Go, No-go” subfactors. The Government will review proposals to determine whether or not the Offeror’s proposal clearly demonstrates and conforms to the following required Operating and Performance Characteristics:

Go, No-go #1 (Mandatory to All Proposed Solution(s)): Ability to propose an “on premises” solution that shall reside on a local server under the management of USAMRDC IM/IT personnel. Regardless of any additional solution proposed (i.e.

Contractor and/or Government cloud hosted) an on-premises solution is mandatory for all vendor proposals.

Go, No-go #2 (Applicable only if proposing a Contractor Hosted Cloud Solution): The system shall be hosted by a FedRAMP authorized MCSP that will allow for reciprocity approvals via DHA. The Offeror shall possess (at a minimum) FedRAMP approval at moderate baseline for the proposed software.

Go, No-go #3 (Mandatory to All Proposed Solution(s)): System shall provide for unique and single sign-on capability for users. System shall integrate with server host authentication procedures (use of DoD Common Access Card).

The Offeror’s proposal shall demonstrate that their proposed solution(s) meets these mandatory “go, no-go” subfactors (as applicable) at time of proposal submission. Failure to demonstrate these subfactors will result in a non-responsive proposal, will be deemed deficient, and will be excluded from further evaluation and therefore not considered for award.

All proposals which are determined to successfully demonstrate all “go, no-go” factors (as applicable) will be evaluated as follows:

(1) The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s technical approach and overall ability to provide the required IP and T2 commercial database system

That meets (or exceeds) all of the Operating Characteristics detailed within Section

3.1. of the PWS.

That demonstrates a capability to meet (or exceed) the additional Operating Characteristics detailed within Section 3.1.1. (applicable only to cloud hosted system), as applicable to the proposed solution.

That meets (or exceeds) all of the Performance Characteristics (PWS 3.2.)

For the degree to which the proposed solution is capable of adhering to the

Functional Characteristics/Capabilities (PWS Section 4.) and the extent to which any “gaps” in functionality/capabilities were addressed by the Offeror, if applicable.

(2) The Government will evaluate the degree to which the Offeror’s proposal demonstrates a clear understanding of all of the PWS requirements including the related Support Services. As part of this evaluation, the Government will evaluate the degree to which:

The Offeror proposes a “Task 1 Draft Plan” to obtain authorizations for Operation and Access by the End User which completely and clearly addresses the requirements included under PWS 5.1. and demonstrates an understanding of Government requirements (to include Risk Management Framework and those listed under PWS 3.1.) which will apply to the proposed solution.

The Offeror proposes a “Task 2 Draft Implementation Plan” to install, implement, configure and test the proposed software and system which completely and clearly addresses the requirements included under PWS 5.2. The Task 2 Draft Implementation Plan will also be evaluated to the degree to which the Offeror addresses PWS 5.2.(c) related to configuring, implementing, and testing user accounts and permissions, activating and synchronizing system components, testing of data through upload and retrieval, and otherwise implementing the system as typically commercially configured.

The Offeror proposes a “Task 3 Draft Plan” to migrate the Government’s legacy data, verify operation of the (fully loaded) system as well as data integrity, and describes the Offeror’s approach for on-going data quality assurance process which completely and clearly addresses the requirements included under PWS 5.3.

The Offeror’s proposal effectively demonstrates an understanding and the ability to provide the required customer support services detailed within PWS 5.4.

The Offeror proposes a Training Plan to address how it will provide annual user training for both basic users and system administrators which will be conducted within the Government's live system and utilizing Government data, in accordance with the requirements included under PWS 5.5.

The Offeror’s proposal effectively demonstrates a clear understanding of the tasks required to successfully complete outgoing transition in accordance with the requirements included under PWS 5.7. The Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated to ensure that the Offeror proposed an estimated timeline to perform the Outgoing Transition Support task.

(3) The Government will evaluate the degree to which the Offeror’s proposal addresses any of the Optional Modules/Features listed under PWS 5.6. Furthermore, the Government will evaluate the degree to which additional Optional Modules/Features proposed by the Offeror (beyond those listed under PWS 5.6.) exceed the Government’s defined “Minimum Essential Characteristics and Capabilities” or “Functional Characteristics/Capabilities” (as listed under PWS Sections 3. and 4.) in a way that will be advantageous to the Government.

The Technical Approach factor will be evaluated utilizing the ratings in Table 3 provided under “e. RATING STANDARDS FOR THE NON-COST/PRICE PROPOSAL” below.

FACTOR 2 – MANAGEMENT AND QUALITY CONTROL APPROACH: The Management and Quality Control Approach will be evaluated for the degree to which the Offeror clearly and completely demonstrates:

An approach to comply with the quality standards established in the PWS that will lead to the successful accomplishment of the requirement as required under PWS 8.3., within the proposed draft PMP. The draft PMP will also be evaluated for the degree to which it proposes a clear approach to coordinating, directing, and effectively managing all subcontractors (if applicable).

Procedures to identify, prevent, and ensure non-recurrence of defective services, and maintain quality, timeliness, responsiveness, and customer satisfaction, as required under PWS 8.2., within the proposed draft QCP.

Management and Quality Control Approach factor will be evaluated utilizing the ratings in Table 3 provided under “e. RATING STANDARDS FOR THE NON-COST/PRICE PROPOSAL” below.

FACTOR 3 – PAST PERFORMANCE: The Government will conduct a Past Performance evaluation of the Offeror’s Past Performance as well as that of its subcontractors. Past Performance that is considered relevant and recent will be evaluated to determine the overall performance confidence. Recency is defined as past performance efforts in the past three (3) years. Common aspects of relevance include similarity of service/support, complexity, magnitude of effort, dollar value, and contract type. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s relevant past performance references to determine the quality of work performed and assess the level of expectation that the Offeror can successfully perform the required effort.

The Government reserves the right to utilize other information not provided by the Offeror and may evaluate other information that is readily available. In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. The Offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance and will receive a neutral rating.

The Past Performance factor will be evaluated utilizing the following ratings:

Table 1. Past Performance Confidence Assessment Rating Method

Rating Definition/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.

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.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral) 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.

FACTOR 4 – SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION: The Offeror’s Small Business Participation Plan will be evaluated based on whether the Offeror has demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives relative to the extent to which small business participation is achievable, specific to each Offeror’s proposed solution. The evaluation of this factor will consider whether the SBPP addresses the following:

The extent to which such firms, as defined in FAR Part 19, are specifically identified in proposals;

The extent of commitment to use such firms as outlined in the Small Business Goals;

The complexity and variety of the work small firms are to perform;

The extent of participation of such firms in terms of the percentage of the total value; and The extent to which the Offeror meets or exceeds the goals set forth in Section 5.4. of this solicitation.

For Large Business Offerors, Small Business Subcontracting Plans will be evaluated for realism and compliance with the Small Business Participation Plan and requirements specified at FAR 52.219-9. Failure on the part of the Offeror to submit an acceptable Subcontracting Plan will result in proposal being ineligible for award.

The Small Business Participation factor will be evaluated utilizing the following ratings:

Table 2. Small Business Participation Rating Method Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives.

Unacceptable Proposal does not demonstrate an adequate approach to locate small business participants.

b. COST/PRICE EVALUATION FACTOR: The Offeror’s Cost/Price will be evaluated separately from past performance and other Non-Cost/Price factors and will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness. The Contracting Officer will conduct price analysis to include fairness and reasonableness in accordance with FAR 12.209 and FAR 13.106-3(a). Offerors are cautioned that award may not necessarily be made to the lowest price Offeror as award of the resultant contract will be made on a competitive best value basis, using “best value tradeoff” among price and non-price factors.

The evaluated Cost/Price will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness in terms of:

Pricing for the proposed IP and T2 database system is consistent with the proposed solution outlined in the non-cost/price proposal

Level of effort, in that the proposed labor mix and labor hours (to include annual fixed monthly and fixed hourly prices) are based on reasonable assumptions and consistency with the proposed solution outlined in the non-cost/price proposal

The proposed prices for each option period reflects reasonable escalation rates.

Evaluation of Extension of Services under FAR Clause 52.217-8: The Government will evaluate an amount associated with FAR 52.217-8. The amount evaluated under clause FAR 52.217-8 will be calculated by the Government using the Cost/Price established for the last option period, prorated six (6) months versus a 12-month pricing scenario.

c. OPTIONS: The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total Cost/Price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced.

Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

d. A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer’s specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

e. RATING STANDARDS FOR THE NON-COST/PRICE PROPOSAL: The Government will utilize the following ratings table for Factor 1 - Technical Approach and Factor 2 - Management and Quality Control Approach.

Table 3. Rating Method for Technical Approach & Management and Quality Control Approach

Rating Definition/Description

Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses (if any assessed). Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses (if any assessed). Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is not eligible for award.

f. BEST VALUE TRADEOFF EVALUATION STANDARD DEFINITIONS

Term Definition/Description

Advantage Any state, circumstance, opportunity, or means specifically favorable to successful contract performance or the Government's overall interest.

Clarifications Limited exchanges between the Government and Offerors that may occur when award without discussions is contemplated.

Communications Exchanges between the Government and Offerors after receipt of proposals, leading to establishment of the competitive range.

Deficiency A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a…