RFP_Amendment__1.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83)

Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The purpose of this amendment is to incorporate changes to the RFP and update the proposal due date for this acquisition. Please review the complete amendment for details.

POC for this action is LYNETTE O. STEVENSON/ lynette.o.stevenson.civ@mail.mil/ (618) 220-7055.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 20

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 01-Apr-2016

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X HTC711-16-R-D001

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

11-Mar-2016

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer X is extended, is not extended.

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE

RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN

REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

01-Apr-2016

CODE

USTRANSCOM-AQ - HTC711

508 SCOTT DR

SCOTT AFB IL 62225-5357

HTC711 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

HTC711-16-R-D001

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The required response date/time has changed from 11-Apr-2016 02:00 PM to 19-Apr-2016 09:00 AM.

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

The following have been modified:

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

L-1. GENERAL INFORMATION

a. Requests for clarification and/or information concerning this solicitation shall be submitted via email only, referencing the PWS/RFP or attachment by Section, Page, and Paragraph to the address below:

USTRANSCOM/TCAQ-DPO

508 Scott Drive

Bldg. 1900W, Suite 1123

Scott AFB, IL 62225

Attn: Ms. Lynette Stevenson and Mr. David Swaney

Solicitation HTC711-16-R-D001

E-mail: lynette.o.stevenson.civ@mail.mil and david.q.swaney.civ@mail.mil

Fax No.: 618-220-6248

b. No requests for clarification will be provided in response to Offeror-initiated telephone calls. All such requests must be made in writing via e-mail and submitted to the above e-mail addresses. All inquiries will be answered in writing and posted to Federal Business Opportunities (www.fbo.gov), available to all interested Offerors. However, time may not permit requests to be answered if received by the above addressee within 10 calendar days of the solicitation release date for offers, as specified in this solicitation.

c. This is an all-electronic solicitation release. No hard copies will be mailed. Amendments to the solicitation will be posted to www.fbo.gov. It is the responsibility of each Offeror to review the webpage for notice of amendments, updates, or changes to current information. The exclusive responsibility for source selection will reside with the

Government. Proprietary information submitted in response to this solicitation will be protected from unauthorized disclosure as required by Subsection 27, of the Office of Procurement Policy Act as amended (41 U.S.C. 423) as implemented in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR).

d. Use of Non-Government Advisors

(1) The Government has contracted with The MITRE Corporation, St Louis Operations, 505 Corporate Center

Drive, Shiloh, IL 62221, to provide advisory assistance to the evaluation team. Contractor personnel will have access to Contractors’ proposals. Submission of your proposal is considered to be your written consent to release of proprietary, confidential or privileged commercial or financial data included in your proposal to MITRE personnel.

All Contractor personnel participating on the evaluation team will sign a non-disclosure certificate prohibiting them from releasing proprietary information.

(2) The contract under which non-Government technical advisors will provide support to this source selection include an Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) clause. The OCI clause requires the companies and their individual non-Government advisors to protect Offeror proprietary data and Government evaluation information and mailto:lynette.o.stevenson.civ@mail.mil mailto:david.q.swaney.civ@mail.mil http://www.fbo.gov/ http://www.fbo.gov/ prohibit the companies from otherwise participating as an Offeror, a subcontractor, or as a consultant to an

Offeror/subcontractor in relation to this acquisition.

e. Offerors’ proposals must be valid for a period of time not less than 180 days from the original submission date.

Offerors shall enter ‘180’ in Block 12 of the SF33.

L-2. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

a. RFP Submissions – Proposals shall be submitted according to the following schedule. Electronic copies of the proposal shall be submitted to Ms. Lynette Stevenson and Mr. David Swaney, via the e-mail addresses listed in L-1.

In the event hard copy and soft copy content conflict, soft copies will take precedence over hard copies. For submission purposes, the electronic copy will be considered the official copy.

(1) Written Proposal Volumes I – VI, both hard and electronic copies, shall be received by the date and time indicated on the solicitation, Block 9 of the SF 33.

(2) The Past Performance Questionnaire shall be submitted via e-mail to the Contract Specialist, Ms.

Lynette Stevenson and Contracting Officer, Mr. David Swaney at the e-mail addresses or fax number listed in

Section L-1 above.

b. Hand Carried Proposals - ACCESS TO SCOTT AFB FOR DELIVERY OF HAND CARRIED PROPOSAL.

Offerors are cautioned that when hand carrying proposals to the depository (508 Scott Drive, Building 1900W, Suite

1123, Scott AFB, IL 62225), those individuals not affiliated with this installation must obtain visitors’ passes prior to entrance. The Shiloh gate has been designated as the “Visitors Center”. Some delays can be anticipated for visitors to process through the “Visitors Center” and Offerors should allow sufficient time to obtain visitors’ passes in order that they may arrive at the depository to submit their proposal within the time-frame specified by the

Contracting Officer. Late proposals will be processed in accordance with the provision entitled “Submission, Modification, Revision and Withdrawals of Proposals”, FAR 52.215-1(c)(3).

L-3. PROPOSAL PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS

a. Guidelines

(1) The Offeror’s response to this solicitation shall include a proposal. The proposal (offer), shall consist of

RFP sections A through K, including all documents and attachments that are incorporated herein and made a part of the contract.

(2) This section provides general guidance for preparing proposals,including specific instructions on the format and content of proposals. Offerors’ proposals must include all data and information requested by this solicitation and submitted in accordance with these instructions. Non-conformance with the specific organization, content, and page limitations may result in mis-evaluation of proposals; or depending on the magnitude of the non-conformance, the proposals may be eliminated from further consideration.

b. Organization/Number of Copies/Markings

Each offeror shall organize and submit its proposal (and any resulting responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs)), described as follows:

Format

Requirement Description

Formats Electronic copies: Must be provided via email. Presentation and spreadsheet documents provided shall be compatible with use of USTC applications. Any changes, as a result of discussions, will be conformed and have changed information clearly marked by a red vertical line in the right margin.

Electronic format: Written documents – MS Word (2010); Spreadsheets – MS Excel

(2010); Project Plans/Schedule – MS Project; MS PowerPoint (2010)

Hard paper copy: 8 ½ x11inch paper

A page is defined as one side of a sheet, 8 ½” x 11”, one and one halfsingle line spacinged with at least one inch margins on all sides.

Font size shall be uncompressed Times New Roman, in no smaller than 11 point for text, and 810 point for spreadsheets, tables, and graphics.

A cover sheet shall be applied to each binder, clearly marked as to volume/part, title, RFP identification, and Offeror’s name.

Page Limits Page limits specified for each section shall be treated as maximums. Pages beyond the limit will not be evaluated. When both sides of a sheet display printed material, it shall be counted as 2 pages. Foldouts printed on 11 x 17 inch paper, shall be counted as 2 or more pages. Included in the page count are separate pages providing graphics, charts, illustrations, and pictures. Title pages, table of contents, section dividers, pages for acronyms/abbreviations and cover pages will not count in page limits and will not be evaluated. *Note that soft copies shall not contain links that embed other documents, as those will count towards the Offeror’s page count.

Page/Section

Numbering

Offeror’s shall use a standard page numbering system to facilitate proposal references.

Pages shall be dated and numbered sequentially by volume. Number consecutive pages within sections. Legible tables, charts, graphs and figures shall be used when necessary to depict organizations, systems and layout, implementation schedules, plans, etc. Foldout pages shall fold entirely within the volume.

Binding All proposal volumes must be in three-ring binders with the exception of the original copy and Volume VI. Original copies shall not have holes or staples. The pages in the binders shall be easily removed and replaced to facilitate page changes.

Copies Volume I – General Compliance Original (free of holes), 2 hard copies, 1 soft

Volume II – Technical Capability Original (free of holes), 4 hard copies, 1 soft

Volume III – Staffing Approach Original (free of holes), 4 hard copies, 1 soft

Volume IV – Past Performance Original (free of holes), 4 hard copies, 1 soft

Volume V – Small Business Original (free of holes), 1 hard copy, 1 soft

Volume VI – Cost/Price Original (free of holes), 1 hard copy, 1 soft

A completed response to this solicitation shall consist of the required number of copies of the volumes as specified above. One complete hard copy should be clearly marked as

“ORIGINAL”. All other hard copies should be marked appropriately (Copy 1, etc.)

L-4. PROPOSAL CONTENTS

a. The Offeror's proposal shall respond to all requirements of this solicitation clearly and completely. Offerors who fail to respond adequately, or fail to clarify or address their proposals after having been notified by the

Government, may be eliminated from the source selection process without further discussions. Promotional or marketing brochures submitted by the Offeror will not be evaluated.

b. The following table provides an overview and page limit of the required volumes for the Offeror’s proposal.

Volume, Title, and Description Page Limits

Volume I – General Compliance No Limit

I-A – Offeror Profile

Company Name

Company Background

Headquarters location

I-B – Top Secret Facility Clearance.

The Offeror shall provide evidence that they possess a Top Secret Facility Clearance as accredited by the Defense Security Service (DSS), at the time of proposal submission. The Offeror must complete blocks 6 & 7 of the DD Form 254, (Attachment 2).

I-C – Contract Forms and Certifications.

The Offeror shall include the following data:

A one-page proposal cover letter or proposal cover page (include names, office phone and facsimile numbers and if applicable, cell phone numbers, and e-mail addresses for proposal points of contact).

If this solicitation is amended, all terms and conditions that are not amended remain unchanged. Offerors shall acknowledge receipt of any amendment to this solicitation by the date and time specified in the amendment(s), (SF 33, Block 14).

A completed copy of the SF33 with the original signature of an official authorized to contractually bind the Offeror in block 17 of the SF 33. The Offeror must complete the following sections within the RFP:

o Part I, Section A (SF 33, Block 17).

o Part IV, Section K, Representations, Certifications and other Statements of Offeror

I-D – Adequate Accounting System.

The Offeror shall provide valid documentation from DCMA, DCAA, or other Federal Audit

Agency for the Offeror’s adequate accounting system. The Offeror shall provide either a copy of the results from the latest adequate accounting system review by the cognizant DCMA or an explanation as to why they do not have a recent approval (within the last 3 years from receipt of proposal).

I-E - Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI)/Mitigation Plan.

OCI. As required by FAR 9.5, the Government will ensure no organizational conflicts of interest are present. If any such conflict of interest is found to exist, the Contracting Officer may disqualify the offeror or determine that it is otherwise in the best interests of the United States to contract with the offeror and include the appropriate provisions to avoid, neutralize, mitigate, or waive such conflict in the contract awarded.

Mitigation Plan. The offeror shall provide the Contracting Officer with complete information of any previous or ongoing work that is in any way associated with this acquisition. Offerors shall submit a mitigation plan that addresses actual or perceived conflicts of interest related to the services required by this effort for Government review. If the Offeror believes there is no OCI, a statement as such shall be included in the cover letter.

Volume II – Technical Capability Proposal 40 Pages

II-A – Transition-In Approach.

The Offeror shall provide a Transition Plan demonstrating sound business practices, processes, and expertise, including the following:

Describe the transition plan for “ramping up” full operational support based on your proposal and Work Breakdown Structure elements including:

o Transition Planning o Transition Execution o Stabilization and Post-Transition Review o Migration of existing contracts to new service providers

Provide details of the Offeror’s plan to meet transition security requirements (facility and personnel), as well as its proposed procedures and policies, risk mitigation techniques, flexibility, resources, and experience which will clearly demonstrate the

Offeror’s complete understanding of the requirements and its team’s ability to successfully execute an organized, seamless, and timely contract phase-in.

II-B – Service Operations. (PWS – Task 2, 1.3.2.)

Describe the approach to providing service delivery of operations, to include new unique or innovative aspects in performance of sub-tasks that result in increased efficiency and effectiveness including tools, techniques, methodologies and frameworks to meet

USTRANSCOM requirements for high-availability, reliability, scalability, and secure IT service environments.

Describe your approach to managing ITIL Service Operations to achieve a proactive and predictive posture.

II-C – Service Support. (PWS – Task 3, 1.3.3.)

Describe your approach to integrating IT service strategy, design and transition activities to facilitate change to services resulting in increased efficiency and effectiveness.

Describe your approach, to include any new, unique or innovative aspects, in providing Service Support within each subtask under Task 3, to include tools, techniques, methodologies and frameworks.

Describe your approach to managing Continual Service Improvement across all eight task areas as specified in the PWS.

Provide an Information Technology Infrastructure Library (ITIL) roadmap detailing maturity levels and timelines to achieve a desired 3.5 maturity level at

USTRANSCOM, by the end of the contract lifecycle. (Based on the ITIL Maturity

Model, published by Axelos)

II-D – Security. (PWS – Task 5, 1.3.5.)

Describe the approach including unique or innovative aspects in providing layered defenses using a defense in depth concept, to accomplish Security Operations

Management Support for Cyber Security Defense and Cyber Security Service Provider operations (operating Host Based Security System (HBSS) and standard host and network based defensive systems to include firewalls, web proxy servers, intrusion sensors, anti-malware systems, etc.), Intrusion Detection Monitoring and Incident

Management and Response, and Cyber Threat Analysis.

Describe the approach, including unique or innovative aspects in implementing and conducting operations, for all phases of the DoD Risk Management Framework (RMF) in accordance with (IAW), DoDI 8510.01 and the DoD Information Systems Security

Engineering IAW NIST SP 800-27), Security Auditing and Assessment, Configuration and Vulnerability Management Activities Support, Authorization Support, Continuous monitoring, user activity monitoring, and Insider Threat Risk Mitigation.

Describe the approach for providing on-site incident response capabilities at Scott AFB, Illinois and at other locations in which USTRANSCOM conducts mission operations.

Volume III – Staffing Proposal 5 pages

III-A – Offeror Team Organization and Staffing Structure.

Describe the proposed team staffing approach for fulfilling USTRANSCOM’s requirements, including processes to recruit, hire, and retain personnel with the skills and security clearances required to meet the Government’s requirements.

Specify name of teaming partner(s) and roles that will be filled by teaming partner(s).

Describe the proposed staffing plan, which identifies the team organizational structure, including key personnel roles and responsibilities, reporting structure and organization chart, given the Offeror’s approach to performing the requirements of the PWS.

Provide the proposed labor hours in the pricing matrix provided in the RFP, Attachment 8. The staffing matrix will auto-populate the proposed labor hours entered in the pricing matrix and correlates each proposed labor category by hours to each PWS task and subtask.

Describe the approach for complying with the Information Assurance/DOD

Directive 8570 requirements. The proposed approach shall identify the specific actions the Offeror will take to ensure 100% compliance at all times with the DOD

Directive 8570 requirements. The specific actions shall be realistic and result in

100% of the Offeror’s personnel being properly certified at all times throughout contract performance.

Volume IV –Past Performance Information 26 pages

IV-A – Reference Data and Relevant Experience.

Contents. The Offeror shall submit Past Performance Information containing the following:

1. Table of Contents

2. Past Performance Information

IV-B – Past Performance Information.

Past Performance will be evaluated as a measure of the Government’s confidence in the offeror’s ability to successfully perform the requirements of the solicitation based on recent and relevant past performance efforts.

Submit information on up to five contracts you consider recent and relevant in demonstrating your ability to perform the proposed effort using Attachment 4, Past Performance Information Sheet.

The Offeror shall submit Past Performance Information sheets identifying recent contracts, with federal, state and local Governments, as well as in the commercial sector.

Past Performance Information sheets shall include specific information for each effort regarding experience in accordance with the performance areas outlined in Attachment

4 and is limited to five pages for each past performance reference provided.

The Government defines “recent” as contracts that are ongoing or were performed within the past three (3) years of proposal due date.

Offerors are cautioned that the Government may use the information provided by each Offeror in this volume and information obtained from other sources for the overall evaluation of past and present performance.

The evaluation of past performance information will take into account past performance information regarding subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to this acquisition.

Subcontractor Consent: Past performance information pertaining to a subcontractor cannot be disclosed to the prime offeror without the subcontractor’s consent. Provide with the proposal, a letter from all subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement, consenting to the release of their past performance information to the prime contractor.

IV-C – Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ). Offerors are responsible for ensuring Past

Performance Questionnaires (Attachment 5) are provided to the appropriate POC referenced for each of the Government or commercial contracts referenced in the Past Performance Information Sheet submitted. Offerors are responsible for ensuring that POC’s for Past Performance Questionnaires timely submits PPQ’s and will only be accepted for the five references provided on Attachment 4.

Volume V – Small Business Proposal No Limit

V-A – Small Business Subcontracting Plan. (Applies to Large Businesses Only).

Offerors, other than small business concerns, shall submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan in accordance with FAR 19.7, FAR 52.219-9, DFARS 219.7, and DFARS 252-219-7003 (See

Attachment 6, Small Business Subcontracting Plan Template). The plan shall describe the Offeror’s approach to meeting the proposed plan goals. The following recommended subcontracting goals are provided to assist in the development of Small Business Subcontracting Plan target goals:

Note: The above small business subcontract percentages are expressed as a percentage of total subcontracting dollars.

Offerors are encouraged to propose percentages greater than those listed.

The Small Business Subcontracting Plan shall be submitted separately from the Small

Business Participation Plan.

Category Target Goals

Small Business 34.5%

Small Disadvantaged Business 5%

Women-Owned Small Business 5%

Historically Underutilized Business Zone 3%

Veteran-Owned Small Business 4%

Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business 3%

V-B – Small Business Participation Plan. (Applies to Small and Large Businesses).

All Offerors shall submit a Small Business Participation Plan in accordance with DFARS

215.304, which identifies the Offeror’s approach to utilizing small business concerns (Small

Business, Small Disadvantaged Business, Women-Owned Small Business, HUB Zone Small

Business, Veteran-Owned Small Business, Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business, Historically Black Colleges or Universities and Minority Institutions and other) in the performance of this contract to the maximum extent practicable. In describing its Small

Business Participation Strategy, the Offeror shall:

Describe the extent of participation of small business concerns under this contract by providing a description of services to be performed (to include the Small Business

Offeror, if applicable).

Provide total (proposed) contract value (the estimated total for the contract and all options) and goals, expressed as dollars and percentages, of the value of work to be performed (to include supplies) for the Offeror and each concern in the format depicted below. The minimum Small Business (SB) Concern percentage goal for this acquisition is 40%; however Offerors are encouraged to propose a greater percentage for the Small Business and Socioeconomic categories.

Socioeconomic categories.

Offeror Name

Total Proposed Price Contract Value

(including options) “A” $ A

$ Value to be

Performed

% of Total Contract

Value

Large Business “C” $ B (B / A)*100

Small Business (SB) Concerns

(includes SB Concerns and

Socioeconomic Subcategories):

$ C

(C / A)*100

(Minimum = 40%)

Total ($ Value of “B” + “C” must = “A”) ($ B + $ C) 100%

Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) $ D (D / A)*100

Women-Owned SB (WOSB) $ E (E / A)*100

HUB Zone SB $ F (F / A)*100

Veteran-Owned SB (VOSB) $ G (G / A)*100

Service-Disabled VOSB (SDVOSB) $ H (H / A)*100

Historically Black Colleges or Universities and Minority Institutions $ I (I / A)*100

Other $ J (J / A)*100

Volume VI – Cost/Price Proposal No Limit

VI-A – Overview and Explanatory Narrative or Notes.

The purpose of this volume is to provide the Government contracting office and cost team evaluators with an understanding of how the price proposal was developed. Note that proposals which do not meet required tests of reasonableness and realism, initially or subsequently, may be eliminated from competition either on the basis that the offeror does not understand the requirement or has submitted an inadequate proposal. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the prices are significantly unbalanced. Contract line item types include FPIF, CPFF, FFP & CR for ITSM Enterprise Support Services. Reference ‘Instructions’ tab in

Attachment 8, prior to completion of pricing matrix.

Compliance with instructions is mandatory and failure to comply may result in rejection of your proposal.

Offerors must include represented costs for on-site and off-site work-related activities.

Target cost/price will be calculated using Offeror’s proposed labor rates and proposed hours for each task area.

For option periods 1, 2, 3, & 4 & 5, escalation rates shall be proposed and will be applied to the labor rates from preceding periods of performance.

Profit/fee percentages shall be proposed by the Offeror for CPFF and FFP CLINs.

The pricing proposal shall include a completed pricing matrix provided as Attachment 8.

The estimated cost/price shall include:

o Proposed labor categories utilized o Unburdened rates and hours proposed for each category o Proposed overhead, G&A, fringe and profit/fee rates o Overall cost/price totals for each CLIN and option periods

Use Attachment

8, Pricing/

Staffing Matrix

**Reference

‘Instructions’

Tab

VI-B – FPIF CLINs.

The pricing proposal shall include a target cost, target profit and ceiling price for each FPIF CLIN.

The share ratios and ceiling rate required for use in determining these values are found below.

Reference Attachment 8, Pricing Matrix of the solicitation, utilizing the following construct and percentages:

Under Target Ratio: (Government Share/Contractor Share) 50/50

Over Target Ratio: (Government Share/Contractor Share) 50/50

Ceiling Price: Target cost x 120%

Target Profit: Target cost x 10%

Use Attachment

8, Pricing/

Staffing Matrix

**Reference

‘Instructions’

Tab

The following have been deleted:

52.215-20 Requirements for Certified Cost or Pricing Data or OCT 2010

Information Other Than Certified Cost or Pricing Data

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M-1. Introduction. This section outlines the criteria the Government will use in evaluating the Offeror’s capabilities and proposal for Information Technology Service Management (ITSM) Enterprise Support. The

Government will compare each Offeror’s technical capabilities and proposal elements against the evaluation criteria related to the Government’s requirement defined herein. This is a competitive, best-value, source selection using a tradeoff process that will be conducted in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15.3 and

Defense Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Part 215.3.

M-1.2. Basis of Award.

M-1.2.1. The Government intends to award a single-award contract from this solicitation to the responsible Offeror whose offer, conforming to the solicitation, will be most advantageous to the Government, based on an integrated assessment of Offeror’s proposed technical capabilities, staffing approach, past performance, small business proposal, and cost/price. The Government will utilize a source selection to determine the “best value” offer with all factors considered, given their relative order of importance.

M-1.2.2. Each offer will be assessed in accordance with the evaluation factor and subfactor criteria herein, resulting in an integrated assessment to arrive at a best value decision.

M-1.2.3. Award will be made to the Offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the Federal Acquisition

Regulation, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements (to include all terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by this solicitation), and is determined based on the evaluation factors, to represent the best value to the Government. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors. However, the

Government will not pay a price premium that it considers to be disproportionate to the benefits associated with the proposed margin of service superiority. By submission of its offer, the Offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation criteria listed in M-2 below.

M-2. EVALUATION FACTORS.

M-2.1. The Government will evaluate Offerors’ proposals for General Compliance and the following factors detailed herein:

FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL CAPABILITY

Subfactor (1): Transition-In

Subfactor (2): Service Operations

Subfactor (3): Service Support

Subfactor (4): Security

FACTOR 2: STAFFING APPROACH

FACTOR 3: PAST PERFORMANCE

FACTOR 4: SMALL BUSINESS PROPOSAL

Subfactor (1): Small Business Subcontracting Plan

Subfactor (2): Small Business Participation Plan

FACTOR 5: COST/PRICE

M-2.1.1. Evaluation factors above are listed in descending order of importance, with technical capability (Technical

Subfactors of equal importance) considered more important than staffing, past performance and the small business proposal. Technical Capability and Small Business Proposals will be rated at the subfactor level with all subfactors considered equal in importance. Price will be evaluated, but not rated. When all factors are combined, the non-cost/price factors are considered approximately equal to cost/price.

Table 1 below provides an overview of the required Volumes with respective Evaluation Categories and Factors.

Table 1. Evaluation Categories and Factors

VOLUME CATEGORY FACTOR

Volume I General Compliance

Volume II Technical Capability Factor 1

Transition Subfactor (1)

Service Operations Subfactor (2)

Service Support Subfactor (3)

Security Subfactor (4)

Volume III Staffing Approach Factor 2

Volume IV Past Performance Factor 3

Volume V Small Business Proposal Factor 4

Small Business Subcontracting Plan Subfactor (1)

Small Business Participation Plan Subfactor (2)

Volume VI Cost/Price Factor 5

M-2.2. GENERAL COMPLIANCE – Information submitted for General Compliance will be evaluated to determine if the Offeror is eligible for award.

M-2.2.1. Facility Clearance. The Offeror provides proof of a Top Secret Facility Clearance as accredited by the Defense Security Services (DSS), at the time of proposal submission. The Offeror completes blocks

6 & 7 of the DD Form 254, (Attachment 2).

M-2.2.2. Contract Forms and Certifications. The Offeror validates eligibility for a Government contract based on the Offeror’s responses to the representations, certifications, all contract forms, acknowledgement of amendment(s) and other statements required by the RFP. All contract Forms, Representations and

Certifications are completed as required.

M-2.2.3. Adequate Accounting Systems. The Offeror provides valid documentation from DCMA, DCAA or other Federal Audit Agency that they have an adequate accounting system for operating

Government cost type contracts to be considered for award.

M-2.2.4. Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI)/Mitigation Plan. The Government will review the

Offeror’s OCI Mitigation Plan to determine if any actual or perceived OCI exists.

M-2.3. FACTOR 1 – TECHNICAL CAPABILITY

M-2.3.1. Technical Ratings. Subfactor 1 – Transition-In Approach, will be evaluated as Acceptable or Unacceptable as described below in Table 2. Offerors must receive a rating of Acceptable in order to be considered for award.

Table 2. Acceptable/Unacceptable Definitions

RATING DEFINITION

Acceptable Proposal meets the Government’s minimum requirements.

Unacceptable Proposal fails to meet the Government’s minimum requirements.

For Subfactor 2 – Service Operations; Subfactor 3 – Service Support; and Subfactor 4 – Security, the Government may assign strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses and deficiencies as identified in Table 3 below, to the

Offeror’s technical proposal.

Table 3. Strengths, Weaknesses, Significant Weaknesses and Deficiency Definitions

Strength

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

Weakness A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance

Significant Weakness A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Deficiency

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

Color ratings, as documented in Table 4 below, will be used in evaluating Technical Subfactors 2-4 above, assigning one of the color ratings for Technical Subfactors 2, 3 and 4.

Table 4. – TECHNICAL CAPABILITY COLOR RATINGS

COLOR RATING DESCRIPTION

Blue Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal contains multiple strengths and no deficiencies.

Purple Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains at least one strength and no deficiencies.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal has no strengths or deficiencies.

Yellow Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable.

M-2.3.1.1. Subfactor 1: Transition-In. Under this subfactor, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s technical approach for providing the following:

(1) The Offeror’s proposal includes a transition plan that demonstrates sound business practices, processes and expertise for “ramping up” full operational support based on your proposal and Work Breakdown

Structure elements including: Transition Planning; Transition Execution; Stabilization and Post-

Transition Review; and Migration of existing contracts to new service providers.

(2) The Offeror’s proposal demonstrates a detailed approach for meeting transition security requirements

(facility and personnel), as well as proposed procedures and policies, risk mitigation techniques, flexibility, resources, and experience which clearly demonstrates the Offeror’s complete understanding of the requirements and its team’s ability to successfully execute an organized, seamless, and timely contract phase-in.

M-2.3.1.2. Subfactor 2: Service Operations. Under this subfactor, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s technical approach for providing the following:

(1) The Offeror’s proposal demonstrates a logical approach to providing service delivery of operations, to include new unique or innovative aspects in performance of sub-tasks that result in increased efficiency and effectiveness including tools, techniques, methodologies and frameworks to meet

USTRANSCOM requirements for high-availability, reliability, scalability, and secure IT service environments.

(2) The Offeror’s proposal demonstrates a logical approach to managing ITIL Service Operations to achieve a proactive and predictive posture.

M-2.3.1.3. Subfactor 3: Service Support. Under this subfactor, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s technical approach for providing the following:

(1) The Offeror’s proposal demonstrates a logical approach to integrating IT service strategy, design and transition activities to facilitate change to services resulting in increased efficiency and effectiveness.

(2) The Offeror’s proposal demonstrates a logical approach, to include any new, unique or innovative aspects, in providing Service Support within each subtask under Task 3, to include tools, techniques, methodologies and frameworks.

(3) The Offeror’s proposal demonstrates a logical approach to managing Continual Service Improvement across all eight task areas as specified in the PWS.

(4) The Offeror’s proposal provides a logical approach an Information Technology Infrastructure Library

(ITIL) roadmap detailing maturity levels and timelines to achieve a desired 3.5 maturity level at

USTRANSCOM, by the end of the contract lifecycle. (Based on the ITIL Maturity Model, published by Axelos)

M-2.3.1.4. Subfactor 4: Security. Under this subfactor, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s technical approach for providing the following:

(1) The Offeror’s proposal demonstrates a logical approach that includes unique or innovative aspects in providing layered defenses using a defense in depth concept, to accomplish Security Operations

Management Support for Cyber Security Defense and Cyber Security Service Provider operations

(operating Host Based Security System (HBSS) and standard host and network based defensive systems to include firewalls, web proxy servers, intrusion sensors, anti-malware systems, etc.), Intrusion Detection Monitoring and Incident Management and Response, and Cyber Threat Analysis.

(2) The Offeror’s proposal demonstrates a logical approach, including unique or innovative aspects in implementing and conducting operations, for all phases of the DoD Risk Management Framework

(RMF) in accordance with (IAW), DoDI 8510.01 and the DoD Information Systems Security

Engineering IAW NIST SP 800-27), Security Auditing and Assessment, Configuration and

Vulnerability Management Activities Support, Authorization Support, Continuous monitoring, user activity monitoring, and Insider Threat Risk Mitigation.

(3) The Offeror’s proposal demonstrates a logical approach for providing on-site incident response capabilities at Scott AFB, Illinois and at other locations in which USTRANSCOM conducts mission operations.

M-2.3.2. Technical Risk. The assessment of technical risk, which is manifested by the identification of weakness(es), considers potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. Risk will be assessed of the technical proposal for Technical Subfactors 2, 3, and 4 and will be assigned one of the following risk ratings:

Table 5. – RISK RATINGS

RATING DESCRIPTION

Low Has little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Can potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High Is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

M-2.4. FACTOR 2 – STAFFING APPROACH

M-2.4.1. Under the Staffing Factor, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s staffing approach for fulfilling

USTRANSCOM’s requirements. The Government may assign strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies as described below in Table 6, to the Offeror’s proposal.

Table 6. Strengths, Weaknesses, Significant Weaknesses and Deficiency Definitions

Strength

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

Weakness A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance

Significant Weakness A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Deficiency

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

Color ratings, as documented in Table 7 below, will be used in evaluating the Offeror’s staffing approach by assigning one of the color ratings for the Staffing Approach Factor.

Table 7 – STAFFING APPROACH COLOR RATINGS

COLOR RATING DESCRIPTION

Blue Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal contains multiple strengths and no deficiencies.

Purple Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains at least one strength and no deficiencies.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal has no strengths or deficiencies.

Yellow Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable.

M-2.4.1.1. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Staffing Approach as follows:

(1) The Offeror’s proposal includes, a realistic staffing approach that includes processes to recruit, hire, and retain personnel with the skills and security clearances required to ensure services are performed without disruption due to staffing issues, to meet the Government’s requirements based on the Offeror’s unique approach.

(2) The Offeror’s proposal includes a team organizational structure, including key personnel roles and reporting structure and organization chart, which logically demonstrates how the Offeror will successfully accomplish the requirements of the PWS .

(3) The Offeror’s proposal includes a staffing plan that identifies the personnel resources detailing roles and responsibilities, given the Offeror’s approach for performing the PWS requirements which logically demonstrates how the Offeror will successfully accomplish the requirements of the PWS . The

Offeror’s proposal includes the proposed labor hours auto-populated in the staffing matrix from the pricing matrix that correlates each labor category by hours to each PWS task and subtask utilizing the pricing matrix provided (Attachment 8).

(4) The Offeror’s proposal demonstrates a logical approach for complying with the Information

Assurance/DOD Directive 8570 requirements. The proposed approach identifies the specific actions the Offeror will take to ensure 100% compliance at all times with the DOD Directive

8570 requirements. The specific actions shall be realistic and result in 100% of the Offeror’s personnel being properly certified at all times throughout contract performance.

M-2.4.2. Staffing Risk. The assessment of staffing risk, which is manifested by the identification of weakness(es), considers potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased

Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. Risk will be assessed of the staffing proposal and will be assigned one of the following proposal risk ratings:

Table 8. – RISK RATINGS

Low Has little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Can potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High Is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

M-2.5. FACTOR 3 – PAST PERFORMANCE

M-2.5.1. Past Performance will be evaluated as a measure of the Government’s confidence in the Offeror’s ability to successfully perform the requirements of the solicitation based on recent and relevant past performance efforts.

The Government will begin its evaluation by determining the recency and relevancy of each past performance effort.

Recent past performance means the references are ongoing or were performed within the past three (3) years of proposal due date.

As part of the Past Performance submission, each Offeror shall demonstrate experience in:

(1) Relevant projects in which your company provided and performed full spectrum operations and maintenance for network infrastructure and IT services. These services include activities as stated under Task 2 of the PWS.

(2) Experience managing IT services through strategy, design and transition in support of business needs.

(3) Transforming an organization utilizing ITIL framework and instituting ITIL best practices.

(4) Performance in recruiting, hiring, training, and retaining personnel in similar environments including access to highly specialized skill sets (specifically, Cyber Security expertise) and Subject Matter

Experts (SMEs).

(5) Experience providing security operations services and conducting operations for all phases of the

DoD Risk Management Framework.

The Government will perform an independent assessment of relevancy of the data provided (Attachment 4), or obtained. While each past performance area does not need to be reflected in a single reference, the Government will give more consideration to a reference which reflects performance in more than one performance area within a single reference.

While the Government will consider past performance information on relevant projects performed for federal, state and local Governments, as well as in the commercial sector, past performance conducted within the DOD will receive greater consideration when assigning a past performance confidence assessment rating than those for work performed for organizations other than DOD.

Each contract reference will be assigned a relevancy rating which will be considered in the overall confidence assessment rating for the offeror. The following ratings will be used in evaluating the relevancy of the offerors’ past performance:

Table 9. – RELEVANCY RATINGS

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

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

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

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

M-2.5.1.1. Past performance regarding predecessor companies or principal subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of this requirement will be weighted the same (equally as important) as the past performance information for the Offeror.

M-2.5.2. In addition to past performance information submitted by the Offeror, past performance information may be obtained through the (1) Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), (2) Questionnaires tailored to the circumstances for this acquisition, and (3) other sources known to the Government.

M-2.5.3. After all past performance work efforts have been assigned individual relevancy ratings, the Government will assign a single Performance Confidence Assessment rating. The assigned rating will reflect the Government’s overall confidence in the Offeror’s, principal subcontractor(s) or teaming partner(s) ability to successfully perform this effort considering performance on previous efforts, information…