HTC71119RD007_Amendment_0001.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 revise the solicitation as a result of questions received from industry.

Refer to AMENDMENT 0001 - SUMMARY OF REVISIONS for details regarding solicitation changes.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

S 1 17

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 06-Jun-2019

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 HTC71119RD007

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

16-May-2019

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 is extended, X 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 1 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

06-Jun-2019

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:

HTC71119RD007

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following have been added by full text:

AMENDMENT 0001

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

1) The following solicitation Attachments were updated:

a) Attachment 1 – Performance Work Statement, specifically paragraphs 18.3 and 18.4, as well as Appendix D.

b) Attachment 4 – Past Performance Information Sheet, specifically adding an additional row regarding subcontractor performance

c) Attachment 5 – Past Performance Reference Sheet, specifically update the Contracting Officer’s email and rename the document title

d) Attachment 6 – Past Performance Questionnaire Form, specifically update the Contracting Officer’s email

e) Attachment 7 – EADE Pricing Template, specifically to correct the number sequence on tab “Labor Rate Table”

f) Attachment 8 – Labor Cat Descriptions, specifically to revise labor category skill levels and preferred education/experience as a result of questions

g) Attachment 9 – DD Form 254, specifically to remove language in Block 6

h) Attachment 10 – Architecture Use Case, specifically to revise information as a result of questions

2) Update Addendum 52.212-1, Instruction To Offerors, as follows:

a) Correct the Contracting Officer’s email under paragraph e, Communications and paragraph f, Proposal Submission

b) Correct paragraph numbers for the Past Performance Volume, Cost/Price Volume, and the Contract Documentation Volume

c) Revise the volume organization under paragraph a, Proposal Organization

d) Revise paragraph c, page size and format, paragraph d, table of contents, and paragraph e, Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms

e) Revise Paragraph b, Volume II Technical/Management Volume regarding Architecture and

Diagrams, as well as correct Subfactor 2, Architecture, subparagraph ii, and Subfactor 3, Enterprise Engineering Support, subparagraph v

f) Revised required information under paragraph v, Contract Documentation

3) Update Addendum 52.212-2, Evaluation Factors for Award, as follows:

a) Revise paragraph iii, Number of Contracts to be Awarded

b) Revise paragraph a, Subfactor 2, Architecture, subparagraph ii

c) Revise paragraph c, Subfactor 3, Enterprise Engineering Support, subparagraph v

d) Revise paragraph c, Quality

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

The following have been modified:

ADDENDUM TO 52.212-1

INSTRUCTION TO OFFERORS

i. Objectives

The Government intends to award one contract as a result of this solicitation. Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal represents the best value in accordance with the evaluation criteria identified in the Addendum to 52.212.2, Evaluation Factors for Award. The Government intends to evaluate offers and award a contract without discussions with offerors; however, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary. If discussions are determined necessary, the contracting officer shall establish a competitive range comprised of all of the most highly rated proposals, unless the range is further reduced for purposes of efficiency.

ii. General Instructions

a) Use of Non-Government Advisors.

Non-government personnel will serve as advisors in the evaluation of proposals. Non-Disclosure Agreements have been signed for all Non-government personnel. Non-government advisors are from the MITRE Corporation, which is a not-for-profit company that operates multiple federally funded research and development centers.

b) General Proposal Guidance.

This section of the Information to Offerors provides general guidance for preparing proposals as well as specific instructions on the format and content of the proposal. The offeror's proposal must include all data and information requested by the solicitation and in accordance with these instructions.

The proposal shall be clear, concise, and shall include sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiating the validity of stated claims. The proposal should not simply rephrase or restate the Government's requirements, but rather shall provide convincing rationale to address how the offeror intends to meet these requirements. Offerors shall assume that the Government has no prior knowledge of their capabilities and experience and will base its evaluation on the information presented in the offeror's proposal.

The offeror shall make a clear statement in the Volume I cover page that the proposal is valid for a minimum of 150 days from the proposal due date.

iii. General Information

a) Points of Contact. The Contracting Officer, Rebecca M. Connor and the Contract Specialist, JaneAnne M. Holten, are the sole points of contact for this procurement. Any questions or concerns shall be addressed in writing only to the Contracting Officer and Contract Specialist.

b) Debriefings. The Contracting Officer will notify offerors of any decision to exclude them from the competitive range; at which point, they may submit a written request for a debriefing to the Contracting Officer within 3 days of notification. Offerors may request their debriefing be delayed until after award. Upon such notification of contract award, unsuccessful offerors may request and receive a debriefing if submitted within 3 days of notification. Offerors requesting a debriefing must make their request in accordance with FAR 15.505 or 15.506, as applicable.

c) Discrepancies. If an offeror believes the requirements in these instructions contain an error, omission, or are otherwise unsound, the offeror shall immediately notify the Contracting Officer and Contract Specialist in writing. The offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussions.

d) Electronic Reference Documents. All referenced documents for this solicitation are available on the Federal Business Opportunities (FedBizOpps) website at http://www.fedbizopps.gov. Potential offerors are encouraged to subscribe for real-time email notifications when information has been posted to the website for this solicitation.

e) Communications. Exchanges of source selection information between the Government and offerors will be controlled by the Contracting Officer and/or Contract Specialist. Exchanges with industry, to include clarifications, communications, and discussions, will be transmitted through email and will be treated as source selection information. Questions will only be addressed if received in email and only when submitted on Attachment 3, Question and Answer Template.

Questions/comments are due no later than 12:00 pm (CST) on May 29, 2019. Questions submitted after the submission deadline may not be answered. The email is to be addressed to the Contracting Officer and Contract Specialist as follows:

Email Address: rebecca.m.connor2.civ@mail.mil and janeanne.m.holten.civ@mail.mil Attn: Ms. Rebecca Connor and JaneAnne Holten Subject Line Reference: HTC71119RD007, Contractor Name, Source Selection Information See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

All questions/comments provided in a timely manner will be answered in writing and posted to FedBizOpps. The timeframe for submitting questions will not be extended as a result of an extension to the proposal submission deadline, unless authorized by the Contracting Officer.

The Government intends to award without discussions. Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best approach/terms for technical, management, past performance, and price; however, despite this intent, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Source Selection Authority (SSA) determines they are necessary. If the SSA determines that discussions are necessary, a competitive range may be established.

iv. Organization/ Page Limits.

a) Proposal Organization. The offeror shall prepare their proposal as set forth in Table 1 below.

The titles and contents of the volumes shall be as defined in this table, all of which shall be within the required page limits and with the number of copies as specified in Table 1. To the greatest extent possible, each volume shall be written on a stand-alone basis so that its contents may be evaluated with a minimum of cross referencing to other volumes of the proposal. The contents of each proposal volume are further described in the paragraphs below.

VOL VOLUME TITLE PAGE LIMIT

I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 pages Cover Page No Limit Table Of Contents No Limit Executive Summary 5 pages http://www.fedbizopps.gov/ mailto:rebecca.m.connor2.civ@mail.mil mailto:janeanne.m.holten.civ@mail.mil

II TECHNICAL/MANAGEMENT

Cover Page No Limit Table of Contents No Limit Technical Management Approach (Subfactor 1) 2 pages Technical Management Approach (Subfactors 2 –

4) 45 pages*

Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms No Limit

III PAST PERFORMANCE

Table of Contents No Limit Subcontractor Letter of Consent 5 pages Past Performance Reference Sheet 1 page Offeror’s Past Performance Information Sheets 12 pages

IV COST/PRICE

EADE Pricing Template N/A Supporting Documentation 2 pages

V CONTRACT DOCUMENTATION

Table of Contents No Limit Solicitation/Contract Information N/A OCI Mitigation Plan No Limit DD254, DoD Contract Security Classification

Specification 4

Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms No Limit *Technical/Management Subfactor 2, Architecture – DoDAF Model, is excluded from the 45 page limitation.

b) Page Limitations. Page limitations shall be treated as maximums. If exceeded, the excess pages will not be read or considered in the evaluation of the proposal. Page limitations shall not be circumvented by including inserted text boxes/pop-ups or internet links to additional information;

such inclusions are not acceptable and will not be considered as part of the proposal. The Government reserves the right not to consider for award any proposal that does not adhere to the administrative requirements of this solicitation.

c) Page Size and Format. A page is defined as the material that fits between page breaks in a Microsoft Office Word document. Pages shall be 8.5 x 11 inches in format size. The font type/text size shall be no smaller than 10-point Arial or Times New Roman (no other font variations are acceptable) font for all text. For all tables, charts, graphs and figures included in the proposal, the text shall be no smaller than 10-point Arial or Times New Roman font.

Legible diagrams, tables, charts, graphs and figures may be used wherever practical. to depict organizations, systems and layout, implementation schedules, plans, etc. These displays shall be uncomplicated, legible, and shall not exceed 11 X 17 inches in size. A 11 X 17 is considered as one page and shall only be used when depicting diagrams, tables, charts, etc.For tables, charts, graphs and figures, the text shall be no smaller than 10-point point Arial, Times New Roman, or Courier New font for all text included in a table. These limitations shall apply to both electronic and hard copy proposals.

NOTE: Page size and Format requirements, outlined above, do not apply to Technical Management Subfactor 1, CMMI Level III Certification, and Subfactor 2, Architecture – DoDAF Model.

d) Table of Contents. Each volume, except the Executive Summary and the Cost/Price Volume IV, shall contain a more detailed table of contents to outline the information presented within that volume.

e) Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms. As required, each volume shall contain a glossary of all abbreviations and acronyms used, and with an explanation for each. Glossaries of Abbreviations and Acronyms do not count against the page limitations for their respective volumes.

f) Proposal Submission. Offerors shall submit their proposals by email to the Contracting Officer, Rebecca Connor, rebecca.m.connor2.civ@mail.mil, and the Contract Specialist, JaneAnne Holten at janeanne.m.holten.civ@mail.mil. All proposal volumes shall be submitted in Adobe Acrobat, Portable Document Format (PDF), Version XI, except the EADE Pricing Template, which shall be submitted in the Government provided format.

The time specified on the SF1449, Block 8, is in Central Standard Time (CST). Offerors are responsible for submitting proposals, and any modification, or revisions, so as to reach the Government office designated in the solicitation by the time specified in the solicitation. All proposals are due at 12:00 PM (CST) on June 18, 2019. Any proposals received after the designated time in Block 9 are “late” and will be handled in accordance with FAR 15.208.

v. Proposal Volumes

a) Volume I - Executive Summary. In the executive summary volume, the offeror shall provide the following information:

(1) Offeror’s name.

(2) The solicitation name and number.

(3) Offeror’s Point of contact’s name, address, email address and telephone number.

(4) Names, titles, email addresses and telephone numbers of persons authorized to negotiate on the offeror’s behalf with the Government for this solicitation, as well as those persons authorized to sign the proposal.

(5) Provide the company/division's facility code; CAGE code; DUNS code; TIN; and business size (large or small) for NAICS Code 541512. If applicable, identify any specific socio-economic status.

(6) Confirmation offeror’s proposal is valid for a minimum of 150 days from the proposal due date.

(7) Provide a list of all subcontractors and/or team members, a listing of their size status, and if applicable, all the socioeconomic programs under which they are eligible.

(8) Table of Contents of the entire proposal to include Lists of Tables, Figures, and/or Drawings.

b) Volume II - Technical/Management Volume. The Technical/Management Volume should be specific and complete. Responses will be evaluated against the Technical/Management subfactors defined in Addendum to 52.212-2. Using the instructions provided below, provide as specifically as possible the actual methodology to be used for accomplishing/satisfying these subfactors. Do not merely reiterate the objectives or reformulate the requirements specified in the solicitation.

In the Technical/Management volume, offerors shall demonstrate their knowledge and understanding for each Technical/Management subfactor.

The Technical/Management volume shall be organized according to the following general outline:

1) Table of Contents

2) Technical/Management Factor

Phase One: Subfactor 1 - CMMI Level III in the Development and/or Services model Phase Two: Subfactor 2 – Architecture – DoDAF model

Subfactor 3 - Data Management Subfactor 4 – Enterprise Engineering Support Any architecture, diagrams, etc., with the exception of the OV-6c, shall be included in the submission for Subfactors 2 – 4.

3) Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms

A. For Subfactor 1, CMMI Level III Certification, the offeror shall demonstrate CMMI Level III certification in the Development and/or Services model.

B. For Subfactor 2, Architecture – DoDAF model, the offeror shall submit architecture models based on a Government-provided use case, Attachment 10. The offeror shall submit the following:

i. OV-5a, Operational Decomposition Tree, OV-6c (Reference PWS Section 4.1)

ii. OV-6c, Event-Trace Description (Developed using BPMN)(Reference PWS Section 4.1)

iii. AV-2, Integrated Dictionary, utilizing DoDAF. (Reference PWS Section 4.1)

C. For Subfactor 3, Data Management, the offeror shall demonstrate their knowledge and understanding in enterprise data management as outlined in the PWS in the following areas:

i. DAMA framework as it applies to leading, prescribing activities, and performing Data

Management for the Joint Deployment and Distribution Enterprise. Describe utilization of the Enterprise Data Environment to proactively identify, MetaTag, manage (e.g. warehousing, lifecycle management, etc.), and track data management (adherence to standards, data quality) variance/issues till resolution. (Reference PWS Section 5.1, 5.2, 5.4, 5.5, 5.7, 5.8, 5.9, 5.10, 5.13)

ii. Project Portfolio Management best practices to capture, score, select, and manage Data-oriented projects for implementation and therefore move to a more effective and efficient JDDE future architecture, leveraging systems & data architectures for data interoperability to further improve data quality, reductions in duplication of data (e.g. move to Reference, Master, & Common data) & data stores, optimization of systems capabilities across multiple portfolios, and implementation of data standards for that purpose. (Reference PWS Section

5.3 and 5.6)

iii. Data Services/Data as a Service to capture, store, converge data sets, and present data for consumption by systems or business intelligence tools utilizing industry best practice technologies and tools. (Reference PWS Section 5.8 and 5.9)

iv. Data convergence, visualization methodologies (e.g. BI outputs, applications, and complex software solutions) to meet iterative customer requirements in an agile development approach to leverage the EDE as a data source to satisfy JDDE customer loosely defined requirements.

(Reference PWS Section 5.11 and 5.12)

D. For Subfactor 4, Enterprise Engineering Support, the offeror shall demonstrate their knowledge and understanding in enterprise engineering support as outlined in the PWS in the following areas:

i. Systems engineering concepts and describe situations where the concepts were used to solve customer problems. (Reference PWS Section 7.11)

ii. Design and implementation of services in a cloud environment (to include micro-services and containerization) utilizing industry best practices and tools. This includes design and allocation of services with respect to Infrastructure as a Service, Platform as a Service, and Software as a Service layers, infrastructure versus application support services, use of software frameworks, and modern software and system architectures. (Reference PWS Section 7.3)

iii. DevSecOps Pipelines and the associated security checks/metrics to transition between stages within a pipeline and across environments. (Reference PWS Section 7.12)

iv. Security related to services in a cloud environments by describing a sample of security risks they have encountered in designing and building enterprise services and how those risk were mitigated. (Reference PWS Section 7.4)

v. Developing prototypes, modeling complex processes, and running simulations. Describe a proposed development methodology and how the team is structured. (Reference PWS Section 7.11, 10)

c) Volume V - Past Performance. Each offeror shall submit a Past Performance Volume, containing past performance information as described below. Offerors are cautioned that the Government will use data provided by each offeror in this volume and data obtained from other sources in the evaluation of past performance.

The Past Performance Volume shall be organized according to the following general outline:

1) Table of Contents

2) Past Performance Reference Sheet

3) Offeror’s Past Performance Information Sheets (Summary Page included on first page of

Past Performance Information Sheet)

The offeror shall submit a minimum of one (1) and a maximum of five (5) contracts that the prime offeror considers relevant (has logical connection to the work described in PWS) in demonstrating its ability to perform the proposed efforts. The contract examples must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past three years from the date of the initial proposal due date. If providing an example(s) for a subcontractor, the prime offeror shall clearly state what areas the proposed subcontractor is expected to perform in support of EADE. References should demonstrate Offeror’s ability to perform the work identified in the following three performance areas:

i. Performance Area 2 – Enterprise Architecture

ii. Performance Area 3 – Enterprise Data Management

iii. Performance Area 5 – Enterprise Engineering

Utilizing the Past Performance Information Sheet, offerors should address all past performance areas identified above. Note: Each reference does not need to reflect performance in all identified performance areas; however, the Government will give greater consideration to references that reflect past performance in multiple performance areas.

If submitting subcontractor past performance, Offerors are required to submit a letter of consent from principal subcontractor(s) to allow discussion of their past performance. Past performance information pertaining to a subcontractor cannot be disclosed to the prime offeror without the subcontractor’s consent. With each proposal, provide a letter from the principal subcontractor(s) performing major or critical aspects of the requirement consenting to release of their past performance information to the prime offeror. The letters of consent do not count towards the page limit for this section.

Include rationale supporting your assertion that the past performance effort meets the definitions of recent and relevant. For a description of the characteristics or aspects the Government will consider in evaluating this information, see the Addendum to 52.212-2: Past Performance Factor.

a) If an offeror submits past performance information for an ID/IQ contract, then the offeror must identify a specific task order under that specific ID/IQ contract.

b) Recent past performance means experience within the last three years from the date of the initial proposal due date.

c) Relevant past performance means providing evidence demonstrating experience with past contracts in similar size and scope.

d) Offerors are required to explain what aspects of the past performance submittals are deemed relevant to the technical evaluation criteria.

The offeror shall provide the Past Performance Questionnaire Form, Attachment 6 of this solicitation, to each of the references identified for each of the past performance efforts submitted.

The Government will only accept questionnaires from the references listed on Past Performance Reference Sheet Attachment 5. Offerors shall complete the Past Performance Reference Sheet to reflect those individuals requested to complete the questionnaire.

Offerors should request the performance references complete and email the questionnaires directly to the Contracting Officer and Contract Specialist. Once the questionnaires are completed by the reference POCs, the information contained therein shall be considered sensitive and shall not be released to the offeror. Early submission of the Past Performance Questionnaire Form is encouraged.

d) Volume VI - Cost/Price. This section is to assist in submitting information other than pricing data that is required to evaluate the reasonableness and completeness of the proposed price. The Government will verify that all solicitation requirements have been priced, figures correctly calculated, and prices are presented in a clear and useful format.

All information relating to the proposed price, including all required supporting documentation, must be included in the section of the proposal designated as the Price Volume. Under no circumstances shall this information and documentation be included elsewhere in the proposal.

The offeror shall indicate whether the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA), or another Federal Audit Agency has determined their firm's accounting system to be adequate and if so, provide evidence of such determination. If not, an explanation as to why they do not have a recent (within the last 3 years from receipt of proposal) review of adequate accounting system shall be provided.

Within the EADE Pricing Template, Attachment 7, all offerors are required to provide fully burdened Fixed Price (FP) labor rates (inclusive of direct and indirect rate burdens, and profit) for all labor categories for both Government Site and Contractor Site for each fiscal year, including the 6-month extension period within the “Labor Rate Table” tab. FAR 52.217-8 which authorizes the Government to require continued performance of any services within the limits and at the rates specified in the contract. These prices shall be identical to the proposed pricing in the six months prior to expiration.

Labor Category Descriptions are included Attachment 8. The qualifications, skills, and experience identified in this attachment are commensurate to the expected level of expertise for this contract.

For cost-reimbursable Other Direct Cost (ODC)/Travel estimates, offerors are provided Government estimated, not-to-exceed, dollar figures.

The total evaluated price will include the sum of all Fiscal years and the six-month extension authorized in FAR 52.217-8.

The labor rates proposed in the EADE Pricing Template will be used as ceiling labor rates for pricing of all future task orders issued under this IDIQ contract. As such, the proposed rates from the EADE Pricing Template will be included in Price Schedule of the awarded ID/IQ contract.

e) Volume VII –Contract Documentation. The purpose of this volume is to provide information to the

Government for preparing the contract document and supporting file. The Offeror's proposal must include a signed copy of the solicitation and completion of all applicable provisions contained in the Standard Form 1449. Required information includes:

1) Table of Contents

2) Soliciation/Contract Requirements

3) Organizational and Consultant Conflict of Interest (OCCI) Mitigation Plan

4) DD254, DoD Contract Security Classification Specification

5) Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms

A. Solicitation/Contract Form. Completion of blocks 30b and signature and date for blocks 30a and

30c of the Standard Form (SF) 1449. Signature by the offeror on the SF 1449 constitutes an offer, which the Government may accept. By signing block 30 of the solicitation, the offeror acknowledges compliance with all sections in this solicitation, HTC71119RD007. Offerors are reminded that many clauses require the prime contractor to include the same or similar clause(s) in contracts with subcontractors. Note: The offeror must comply with the FAR provision 52.204-7 entitled “System for Award Management.” Offerors are required to be registered in SAM at the time an offer or quotation is submitted in order to comply with the annual representations and certifications requirements. An offeror may be determined ineligible for contract award if not registered within SAM at time of offeror and/or at time of award. Offerors are also required to complete and submit fill-ins, representations, certifications, acknowledgments, and statements reflected in this solicitation.

B. Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI)/Mitigation Plan. As required by FAR 9.5, the

Government will ensure no organizational conflicts of interests 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 interest of the Government to contract with the offeror and include the appropriate provisions to avoid, neutralize, mitigate, or waive such conflict in the contract awarded.

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. The Government will conduct an independent assessment review of any submitted OCI Mitigation Plan to determine if any actual or perceived OCI exists and what further actions are necessary, if any. Additionally, the Government will monitor contract performance for emerging areas of conflict of interest and taken action considered necessary to avoid, neutralize, or mitigate conflicts. If the offeror believes there is no OCI, a statement as such will be included in the cover letter.

C. DD254, DoD Contract Security Classification Specification. Offerors (Prime Contractors) shall have and maintain a valid Facility Security Clearance (FCL) at the Top Secret level at the time of proposal submission. The prime contractor's Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) code that is to be associated with the contract award document shall be the same CAGE code associated with the FCL. The prime contractor cannot use another branch, division, or subsidiary CAGE code to satisfy the FCL requirement. Block 6 of the DD254 shall have the prime contractor information, to include their CAGE code, which shall match the CAGE code submitted on the rest of the proposal documents.

Interim FCLs are acceptable provided they are not expired. FCL procedures and security guidelines for adjudicative requirements are outlined in DoD 5220.22-M FCLs and Interim FCLs must be awarded by the Defense Security Service Facility Clearance Branch. Completed DD254s must be submitted with proposals, Attachment 9.

ADDENDUM TO 52.212-2

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

i. Basis for Contract Award This is a best value trade off source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) and the Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection procedures. The Government will award to the offeror who, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors described below, represents the best value to the Government and is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR, as supplemented. An offeror’s proposal must conform to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Addendum to 52.212-1 of this solicitation) to be considered for contract award.

ii. Evaluation The technical proposal should include all information the offeror wants the Government to consider and evaluate regarding the offeror’s ability to perform all required tasks. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors; however, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions or seek clarifications if the Contracting Officer deems necessary. The Government may establish a competitive range based on the ratings of each proposal; furthermore, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

iii. Number of Contracts to be Awarded The Government intends to award a hybrid firm-fixed price, single-award indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity (ID/IQ) contract with Firm-Fixed Price and Labor Hour line items; however, the Government reserves the right to make no award at all. Additionally, the Government anticipates issuing one task order under the single award ID/IQ contract at time of award to fulfill the Government’s minimum guarantee.

iv. Rejection of Offers The Government may reject any proposal that takes exception to the terms of this solicitation. The Government reserves the right to reject any or all offers in whole or in part and to incorporate all, part or none of the offeror’s written proposal into the resultant contract.

v. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal, and allow the Government to assess the offeror’s ability to perform the contract.

a) Factor 1: Technical/Management

Phase One: Subfactor 1 - CMMI Level III in the Development and/or Services model Phase Two: Subfactor 2 - Architecture – DoDAF model

Subfactor 3 - Data Management Subfactor 4 - Enterprise Engineering Support

b) Factor 2: Past Performance

c) Factor 3: Cost/Price

The relative importance of each factor and subfactor is as follows: technical, past performance and cost/price are listed in descending order of importance. Within the technical/management factor, subfactor 1 will be pass/fail, and subfactors 2 through 4 are of equal importance. In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), all evaluation factors other than cost/price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price.

vi. Evaluation

(1) Technical/Management Factor. The Technical/Management evaluation will consist of two phases. In Phase one, the Government will conduct a Pass/Fail evaluation against Subfactor 1 to determine if the offeror is CMMI Level III in the Development and/or Services model at time of initial proposal submission. (Reference PWS Section 2.1) The burden of proof is the responsibility of the offeror as part of the proposal submission.

The Government will verify Level III on the CMMI Institute site, https://sas.cmmiinstitute.com/pars/. While a Joint Venture (JV) or Contract Teaming Arrangement (CTA) is its own unique entity distinct from the member companies, for the purpose of evaluation, the Government will accept proof of CMMI from each member of the JV/CTA, in lieu of CMMI at the entity-level.

Offerors that clearly meet the requirement specified in Phase One will receive a rating of “Pass.” Offerors that do not clearly meet the requirement in Phase One will receive a rating of “Fail.” If an offeror receives a rating of “Fail,” their submission will not be further evaluated. The results of the Phase One evaluation rating of “Pass” will have no impact on the Phase Two evaluation or on the best value tradeoff determination.

In Phase two, the Government will evaluate the offeror’s responses to Subfactors 2-4. Phase Two of the Technical/Management Factor will be evaluated using a combined Technical/Management rating and risk rating. The Government may assign strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses and deficiencies as identified below to the offeror’s technical proposal.

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 below, will be used in evaluating Subfactors 2-4, assigning one of the color ratings for Subfactors 2, 3 and 4.

Combined Technical/Risk Ratings Color Rating Description

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

https://sas.cmmiinstitute.com/pars/

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

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

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

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

a) For Subfactor 2, Architecture – DoDAF model, the offeror’s proposal demonstrates their ability to document architecture in the following:

i. OV-5a, Operational Decomposition Tree, OV-6c (Reference PWS Section 4.1)

ii. OV-6c, Event-Trace Description (Developed using BPMN)(Reference PWS Section 4.1)

iii. AV-2, Integrated Dictionary, utilizing DoDAF. (Reference PWS Section 4.1)

b) For Subfactor 3, Data Management, the offeror’s proposal demonstrates their knowledge and understanding in enterprise data management in the following areas:

i. DAMA framework as it applies to leading, prescribing activities, and performing Data

Management for the Joint Deployment and Distribution Enterprise. Describe utilization of the Enterprise Data Environment to proactively identify, MetaTag, manage (e.g. warehousing, lifecycle management, etc.), and track data management (adherence to standards, data quality) variance/issues till resolution. (Reference PWS Section 5.1, 5.2, 5.4, 5.5, 5.7, 5.8, 5.9, 5.10, 5.13)

ii. Project Portfolio Management best practices to capture, score, select, and manage Data-oriented projects for implementation and therefore move to a more effective and efficient JDDE future architecture, leveraging systems & data architectures for data interoperability to further improve data quality, reductions in duplication of data (e.g. move to Reference, Master, & Common data) & data stores, optimization of systems capabilities across multiple portfolios, and implementation of data standards for that purpose. (Reference PWS Section 5.3 and 5.6)

iii. Data Services/Data as a Service to capture, store, converge data sets, and present data for consumption by systems or business intelligence tools utilizing industry best practice technologies and tools. (Reference PWS Section 5.8 and 5.9)

iv. Data convergence, visualization methodologies (e.g. BI outputs, applications, and complex software solutions to meet iterative customer requirements in an agile development approach to leverage the EDE as a data source to satisfy JDDE customer loosely defined requirements.

(Reference PWS Section 5.11 and 5.12)

c) For Subfactor 4, Enterprise Engineering Support, the offeror’s proposal demonstrates their knowledge and understanding in enterprise engineering in the following areas:

i. Systems engineering concepts and describe situations where the concepts were used to solve customer problems. (Reference PWS Section 7.11)

ii. Design and implementation of services in a cloud environment (to include micro-services and containerization) utilizing industry best practices and tools. This includes design and allocation of services with respect to Infrastructure as a Service, Platform as a Service, and Software as a Service layers, infrastructure versus application support services, use of software frameworks, and modern software and system architectures. (Reference PWS Section 7.3)

iii. DevSecOps Pipelines and the associated security checks/metrics to transition between stages within a pipeline and across environments. (Reference PWS Section 7.12)

iv. Security related to services in a cloud environments by describing a sample of security risks they have encountered in designing and building enterprise services and how those risk were mitigated.

(Reference PWS Section 7.4)

v. Developing prototypes, modeling complex processes, and running simulations. Describe a proposed development methodology and how the team is structured. (Reference PWS Section 7.11, 10)

(2) Past Performance. Past performance will be evaluated as a measure of the Government’s confidence in the offeror’s ability to successfully perform the contract. The past performance evaluation will consider the recency, relevancy, and quality of a contractor’s past performance efforts.

a) Recency - To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past three years from the date of the initial proposal due date. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

The Government will consider recent past performance information identified by each offeror, as well as any additional recent past performance information obtained by the Government, in determining an overall past performance confidence assessment rating for each offeror.

b) Relevancy - For each recent past performance reference reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will be assessed. The past performance information submission forms and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the relevancy of past performance.

To be determined relevant, the past performance effort must demonstrate the following performance in relation to the current procurement:

1) Enterprise Architecture and/or DoDAF Support

2) Data Management Support

3) Engineering Support

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 work performed for organizations other than DoD.

The below table reflects the definitions that will be utilized to determine the relevancy of each past performance effort.

Past Performance Relevancy Rating

Adjectival Rating Description

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.

c) Quality - The Government will consider the performance quality of recent and relevant efforts. For each recent/relevant past performance reference reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed. The quality assessment consists of an in-depth, comprehensive evaluation of the past performance questionnaire responses, Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) information, Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and/or interviews with Government mission partners.

As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will be assigned a single Performance Confidence Assessment rating. The assigned rating will reflect the Government’s overall confidence in the offeror’s ability to successfully perform this effort. The Past Performance Confidence Assessment rating is based upon all of the information submitted, obtained, and determined relevant by the Government, regardless of whether the information is for a prime or subcontractor.

Past Performance which cannot be validated by a source other than the offeror will not be considered in the Past Performance Confidence Assessment. Note: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, that offeror will receive an overall Past Performance Confidence Assessment rating of “Neutral Confidence” which will be considered neither favorably nor unfavorably. The below table reflects the Past Performance Confidence Assessment ratings.

Past Performance Confidence Assessment Rating

Adjectival Rating Description

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

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

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.

(3) Cost/Price. The offeror's price proposal will be evaluated using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404, in order to determine if it is reasonable and complete. For a price proposal to be complete, all solicitation requirements must be priced, figures correctly calculated, and costs presented in the Government provided pricing template, Attachment 7.

a) Total Evaluated Price. The basis for evaluating price will be the total price proposed for the estimated quantities provided in the solicitation. The Government will calculate a total proposed price by applying Government estimated labor hours for each Fiscal year of contract performance to each offeror’s proposed fully burdened labor rates for each labor category at both Government and Contractor sites. The Government estimated hours in the pricing template are for evaluation purposes only.

FAR 52.217-8 is included in the solicitation and authorizes the Government to require continued performance of any services within the limits, and at the rates specified in the contract. The total evaluated price will include the sum of all Fiscal years and the six-month extension authorized in FAR 52.217-8. The prices proposed for the six-month extension shall be identical to the proposed pricing in the six-months prior to expiration of the contract.

b) Price Analysis. Price analysis will be used to determine reasonableness and completeness. The

Government will determine completeness of the offeror’s proposal by verifying that all solicitation requirements have been priced, figures are correctly calculated, and the offeror has submitted the Government provided pricing template, Attachment 7. The Government will determine reasonableness of the offeror’s proposal by using one or more of the price analysis techniques under FAR 15.404- 1(b).

The Government will analyze all offeror’s proposed prices to determine if the prices are unbalanced.

An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

c) Other Direct Costs/Travel. Due to the likely inability of any offeror to accurately estimate Other

Direct Costs and/or travel requirements associated with this requirement, the Government is providing dollar figures to be used by all offerors when proposing. The proposed dollar amounts will be identified in the pricing template.

Travel shall be authorized by the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) prior to performance and will be reimbursed in accordance with PL 99-234, Federal Civilian Employees and contractor Travel Expenses Act of 1985 and FAR Part 31.205-46. No profit or fee will be authorized for travel, materials, or ODCs. Applicable burdens (e.g.