ID05180020_ RFP.docx

Request for Proposal (Far part 15) Solicitation No. 47QFLA21R0007/ ITSS Order ID #ID05180020 Request for Proposal GSA ID No. ID05180020 Solicitation No. 47QFLA21R0007

1. GENERAL INFORMATION: This Request for Proposal (RFP) is issued utilizing the procedures outlined by FAR Part 12, FAR Part 15, and FAR Part 16. Contractors shall clearly identify any non-material exceptions to the RFP terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. A response that takes exception to any of the material terms and conditions will be considered unacceptable and will not be awarded.

The Government intends to issue a single-award Indefinite Delivery/ Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract with a ceiling cost of $250 Million in response to this RFP. The minimum guarantee for this IDIQ is $100,000. The IDIQ will be issued and administered by the General Services Administration, Federal Acquisition Service, Region 5 Contracting Division as an assisted acquisition on behalf of the Department of Defense (DoD) United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM). The IDIQ will provide for Joint Airborne Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (AISR) Sensor Data Transport Infrastructure Enterprise Integration Support. This RFP shall not be considered authorization to begin performance and in no way obligates the Government for any costs incurred by the contractor for this requirement. The Government reserves the right not to award an IDIQ contract as a result of this RFP.

1.1. NORTH AMERICAN INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (NAICS) CODE: 541330, Engineering Services

1.2. EXTENT OF COMPETITION:

☒ Competitive Procedures ☐ Limited Sources

1.3. TYPE OF CONTRACT: The resultant IDIQ contract will allow for both Firm Fixed Price (FFP) and Time & Materials (T&M) task orders.

1.4. REQUIREMENT DESCRIPTION: As specified within the Statement of Work (SOW) (Attachment 1)

1.5. PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE (POP): The resultant IDIQ contract will consist of a five-year ordering period. The Ordering period will begin upon IDIQ award and will expire five-years later; the anticipated POP is April 4, 2021 through April 3, 2026.

1.6. ISSUING OFFICE POINTS OF CONTACT (POC):

Contracting Officers:

Rosie Buchalski 312.279.8155 rosemarie.buchalski@gsa.gov

Kali Clement 618.616.4413 Kali.clement@gsa.gov

Program Manager:

Theresa Vollink 312.886.3827 theresa.vollink@gsa.gov

1.7. SMALL BUSINESS SET-ASIDE: This requirement is not being set-aside for small businesses. The Government will accept quotes from all businesses, large and small. Any large business responding to this RFP will be required to submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan in accordance with section 6.1 below.

1.8. HISTORICAL INFORMATION Not Applicable. This is a new requirement and no procurement history exists.

1.9. INCUMBENT CONTRACT INFORMATION: Not Applicable. This is a new contract and no procurement history exists

1.10. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION: As specified within the SOW (Attachment 1) and the DD254 (Attachment 8).

1.11. CONFIRMATION OF INTENT TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS SOLICITATION: The Government requests contractors provide a response back to the POCs identified in section 1.6 above confirming their companies intent to respond to this RFP, to include no-bid responses. It is requested that this intent be submitted no later than Close of Business on Wednesday, January 20, 2021. Failure to provide this confirmation will not result in removal from competition but is nonetheless requested.

1.12. INFORM 2.0 INFORMATION AND PROCESSES: This solicitation is part of an initiative using the INFORM 2.0 process which is designed to enhance the quality and usefulness of post-award communications by providing greater transparency and openness into the procurement process. INFORM 2.0 seeks to increase GSA-industry communication by providing clearer and more complete information to explain the award decision.

Through the INFORM 2.0 process, GSA will seek to share additional information with offerors in writing and/or through an oral feedback meeting that is not required by statute or regulation. For purposes of this solicitation, and in addition to any information required by FAR 15.503 and 15.506, GSA is providing each offeror with the opportunity to participate in the INFORM 2.0 process as further discussed below.

1.12.1. Component 1- Notification of Award

After award and in accordance with any post-award notification timeframes required by regulation (i.e., FAR Parts 15.503(b) and 16.505(b)(6)), the contracting officer will issue written notices to the successful and unsuccessful offerors (the Notification of Decision Statement (NODS)). The notices will contain:

● All information required by statute or regulation;

● An unredacted copy of the complete technical evaluation for that particular offeror that includes a full description of the unsuccessful offeror’s strengths, weaknesses, risks, and deficiencies;

● An overall technical evaluation summary for that particular offeror and the successful offeror that includes evaluated price; overall technical ranking, rating, or score.

1.12.2. Component 2- Request for Oral Feedback Meeting or Written Questions Within three business days after receipt of the NODS, an offeror may, but is not required to:

● submit a written request to the contracting officer for an oral feedback meeting;

● submit a list of written questions to the contracting officer; or

● take no further action.

If the offeror timely elects to request an oral feedback meeting or submit a list of written questions, GSA will consider any such request to constitute a required debriefing pursuant to FAR 15.506. If an offeror does not request an oral feedback meeting or submit a list of written questions within the three day time period, the receipt of the NODS concludes the INFORM 2.0 process and satisfies the FAR requirement for debriefs pursuant to FAR 15.506.

If the offeror submits a list of written questions in lieu of the oral feedback meeting, the contracting officer will attempt to respond within five business days of receipt of the written questions. Unless otherwise stated, the contracting officer’s response to the written questions will conclude the INFORM 2.0 process and any corresponding post-award debriefing as further set forth at FAR 15.506.

If the offeror requests an oral feedback meeting, the offeror should provide the following information:

● Primary point of contact;

● List of participants with titles (e.g., Senior Vice President);

● List of topics to assist GSA better prepare for the oral feedback meeting; and

● Preference for in-person, telephone, or web-based conferencing (if available).

1.12.3. Component 3- Oral Feedback Meeting

During the oral feedback meeting, GSA’s objectives are to provide:

● Reasonable responses to written questions submitted by the offeror;

● Explanations for the evaluation conclusions and contract award decisions;

● Any additional information about the fairness and impartiality of the evaluation and why the award decision was rational;

● Reasonable responses to additional questions raised during the meeting;

● Additional transparency into the underlying competition process; and,

● A greater understanding of the evaluation and award process.

GSA will not provide any information that is prohibited by law or regulation.

1.12.4. Component 4- Post-Oral Feedback Meeting

Within two business days after the conclusion of the oral feedback meeting, the offeror may submit a list of written questions to the contracting officer. The contracting officer will provide a written response within five business days and, unless otherwise noted by the contracting officer, the INFORM 2.0 process and any corresponding postaward debriefing as further set forth at FAR 15.506 will have concluded.

If the offeror elects not to submit a list of written questions within two days after the oral feedback meeting, the INFORM 2.0 process and any corresponding post-award debriefing as further set forth at FAR 15.506 is concluded.

2. SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS: Non-conformance with the below instructions and proposal content requirements may result in immediate removal from competition.

2.1. DUE DATE: The contractor shall submit its quote before the due date and time listed in the beta.SAM.gov notice. Late quotes will be processed in accordance with FAR 52.212-1(f) Late Submissions, Modifications, Revisions, and Withdrawals of Offers.

2.2. QUESTIONS: All questions regarding this solicitation shall be submitted in email no later than 1800 Central Standard Time on Thursday, January 14, 2021 to the POCs at the email addresses provided above. Questions shall be provided on the attached Question Template (Attachment 2).

2.3. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION PROCEDURES: . The offeror must submit their proposal through the GSA Information Technology Solution Shop (ITSS) procurement portal (https://portal.fas.gsa.gov/itss-home) under the solicitation number noted above. The contract and subsequent TOs will be awarded and administered through the GSA ITSS system. If your company is not registered in the ITSS system, you must register to submit your proposal prior to the proposal due date. Instructions for registering are provided on the web site. Additionally, phone technical support for ITSS is available by calling toll free 877 / 243-2889 and following the prompts (currently press #2 for registration). Contractors that submit a proposal but fail to properly register in the AASBS Portal will result in an “Unregistered Vendor Proposal.” An award cannot be made to an “Unregistered Vendor Proposal.” An “Unregistered Vendor Proposal” will be considered as failure to submit a response and will result in the contractor’s immediate removal from competition. DO NOT WAIT TO CHECK TO SEE IF THE COMPANY, CONTRACT NUMBER, AND INDIVIDUAL AUTHORIZED TO SUBMIT QUOTE(S) IS CORRECTLY REGISTERED IN THE AASBS PORTAL.

2.4. MINIMUM ACCEPTANCE PERIOD: Quotations shall be available for Government acceptance for a period of no less than 120 calendar days.

2.5. FORMAT: Quotes shall be broken into the following three volumes with the page limits as specified below:

· Volume 1: Technical- the technical response shall not exceed 25 pages total to be broken up as follows:

· Subfactor 1: Management/ Staffing Approach (to include completed Attachment 3, Staffing Qualifications Matrix)- offeror determined *qualifications matrix is excluded from the page count

· Subfactor 2: Scenario-based Technical Approach (12 pages)

· Subfactor 3: Technical Response to Task Order 01

· Volume 2: Past Performance- Government format provided (Past Performance Worksheet, Attachment 5). Past Performance Questionnaires, Attachment 6, are not included in this page count.

· Volume 3: Price (Government format provided. NOTE: Supplementary price information, in addition to the Government provided pricing worksheet, attachment 6, is encouraged. There is no page limit associated with the supplemental price volume information. No non-price factor information shall be included in the price volume.

2.6. PAGE LIMITATION EXCLUSION: Pages or written material exceeding the number specified will not be read or considered in the evaluation by the Government. The following are excluded from page limitations:

· Table of contents

· Title Page

· Contractor Point of Contact Cover PageThe offeror shall include, as a cover page to the submission, the point of contact authorized to hold negotiations with the Government and has the full authority to bind the offeror to a contract. This cover page is excluded from any non-price submission page limits. Information required in this cover page includes name, title, e-mail address, physical address, phone number, and level of authority.

2.7. QUOTE ORGANIZATION: The quotation in its entirety shall be organized to correspond with the evaluation criteria and submitted in an 8½-in X 11-in format, using 12-point Times New Roman type, and 1-inch margins.

3. EVALUATION FACTORS: The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal.

Award will be made to the offeror proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon an assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below. The relative importance of each factor and subfactor is as follows:

Evaluation Factor 1 (Technical) and Evaluation Factor 2 (Past Performance) are equally important, but when combined, are significantly more important than Evaluation Factor 3 (Price). The Government intends to rate the subfactors under Factor 1 (Technical) at the subfactor level; Under Factor 1 (Technical) the three subfactors are of equal importance.

For purposes of this RFP, the following definitions are provided:

· Strength is an aspect of an offeror's proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

· Deficiency is 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.

· Weakness means a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. A "significant weakness" in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

3.1 EVALUATION FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL The Technical proposal should be specific and complete. Legibility, clarity, and coherence are very important. Information that clearly describes the contractor’s technical approach to the following subfactors must be included in the Technical Volume (Volume 1) only. The proposal should not merely reiterate or rephrase the objectives or reformulate the Government’s requirements specified in the solicitation, but shall provide convincing rationale to address how the offeror intends to meet these requirements. Offerors shall assume the Government has no prior knowledge of their facilities and experience and will base its evaluation on the information presented in the offeror’s proposal only. Non-conformance with these instructions may result in an unfavorable proposal evaluation. Factor 1 is made up of the following three subfactors: subfactor 1, Management Approach; Subfactor 2, Scenario-Based Technical Approach; and subfactor 3,Staffing Plan (including Qualifications Matrix). The Government will utilize Attachment 10, Technical Evaluation Capability Matrix, for purposes of the technical evaluation.

The Government will review all proposals considered for award to determine the degree to which the proposal meets, or does not meet, the requirements of the RFP through an assessment of the risk in conjunction with strengths and deficiencies of the proposal, and assign an overall technical/risk rating to each offer, as defined in Table 1 below. In the written technical proposal (to include the written management plan, scenario based technical plan, and staffing plan), the contractor shall identify and describe the methodology and analytical techniques used to fulfill the overall objectives and requirements that are described in this solicitation. The contractor’s technical approach shall clearly demonstrate an understanding of the requirements and include an innovative and efficient approach in satisfying the overall objectives of this requirement. Information that clearly describes the contractor’s approach to the following subfactors must be included in the Technical Volume and will be rated, as defined in Table 1, with each subfactor receiving a separate rating.

The following ratings/definitions, as outlined by Table 1- Technical/Risk Ratings, will be utilized in evaluating the technical subfactors and in establishing the final, overall factor level rating.

Table 1- Technical/Risk Ratings

exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

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

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

contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is unawardable.

3.1.1 Subfactor 1 – Management/Staffing Approach (to include Staffing Matrix) This subfactor pertains to the soundness and flexibility of the proposed Management and Staffing Approach. In the technical submission, the offeror shall identify and describe the methodology and analytical techniques to be used to fulfill the overall objectives and requirements that are described in the Statement of Work (SOW). The offeror shall submit its approach for accomplishing the support services, objectives, and tasks. The offeror’s Management Approach shall clearly demonstrate an understanding of the requirements and include an innovative and efficient approach for satisfying the overall objectives of the SOW. In response to this subfactor, the offeror shall be sure to address, at a minimum, the following:

· A demonstrated ability to produce and deliver all reports and output products required by the PWS in a timely and efficient manner.

· A “map” that clearly links its offer to the SOW requirements and includes any applicable milestones.

· The offeror’s approach for preparing, reviewing and/or developing strategic planning and performance reporting methods which are applicable to a global, diverse enterprise.

· The offeror’s knowledge and demonstrated use of program management methods, especially in the area of AISR Sensor Data Transport Infrastructure.

· The offeror’s approach to architecture support in the development and assessment of performance reference models, business reference models, and use and maintenance of enterprise architectures to facilitate key transformation initiatives relating to AISR Sensor Data Transport Infrastructure.

· The offeror’s approach to applying subject matter advisory and assistance expertise in DoD AISR-related capabilities including (but not limited to) USSOCOM Airborne ISR Transport Infrastructure and multiple, broader DoD-wide Sensor Data Transport Infrastructures.

The offeror’s staffing approach shall provide and describe the labor categories (LCATs) it proposes to provide the Government for the performance of the requirements of the SOW for use under the resultant task orders. The offeror shall include any and all LCATs required in the performance of this IDIQ contract and subsequent task orders. This response shall include the qualifications for each labor category proposed. In support of the offeror’s ability to recruit and retain an adequate number of qualified personnel to perform upon task order awards, the contractor shall provide a pool of candidates meeting the qualifications proposed for all LCATs determined “Key Personnel” (as identified within the staffing matrix chart and SOW section 6.4); the contractor is responsible for identifying key positions beyond those identified within the SOW, or in the below chart, as applicable This subfactor will also be evaluated in regard to the offeror ensuring that it employs key personnel capable of meeting the qualifications commensurate with the requirements of the IDIQ contract and resultant Task Orders.

For each LCAT proposed, the offeror shall identify the minimum qualifications it will utilize when filling each position. The offeror shall be sure to provide LCAT descriptions (i.e., experience, capabilities, responsibilities, etc.) for each proposed LCAT. The offeror shall note that all proposed personnel must meet the requirements of the SOW and subsequent task orders including security clearance requirements. For each requirement identified in the SOW, the offeror shall propose LCATs to support. The offeror shall be sure to address any teaming arrangements planned for performance of this IDIQ contract and resultant task orders and the responsibilities of each contractor and subcontractor in filling these LCAT positions. For purposes of this evaluation subfactor, the offeror need not provide pricing. However, it should be noted that ALL LCATs proposed under this subfactor shall be reflected and priced within the Volume III (Price). Failure of the offeror to provide pricing for all LCATs included under this subfactor may result in the offeror being excluded from further evaluation and removed from competition. Note, the Staffing Qualifications Matrix is included as Attachment 3 to the RFP; the contractor shall utilize this attachment when completing and submitting their response.

3.1.2 Subfactor 2 – Scenario-Based Technical Approach

This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s systematic, technical, and material solution approach to satisfying the documented requirement through a scenario-based project plan. The response to this subfactor should capture the timeline, activities, and engagements required to deliver the required AISR Regional Ground Entry Point (RGEP) at Somewheristan Air Base (AB), OCONUS. The offerer’s Scenario-Based Technical Approach shall clearly demonstrate an understanding of the requirement, their knowledge of the associated materiel solution required to satisfy the Simultaneous Operation (SIMOP) and Thread count, the Radio Frequency (RF) bands, and the DoD Information Network (DoDIN) connectivity to be supported. The offeror’s response shall also clearly outline their technical approach by demonstrating its ability to accomplish the support services, objectives, and tasks required by the scenario and overarching SOW. The offeror shall clearly demonstrate their understanding of the work to be performed and identify the technical solution for each task including the approach, methodology, and analytical techniques to perform the requirements outlined in the PWS inclusive of all tasks.

3.1.3 Subfactor 3 – Response to Task Order 01

This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s systematic, technical, and material solution approach to satisfying the documented requirements of Attachment 9, Task Order 01 PWS. The response to this subfactor should capture the timeline, activities, and engagement required to support the tasks outlined by Attachment 9, along with all required staffing. The response shall clearly demonstrate an understanding of the requirement and include a technical approach that outlines the offeror’s ability to provide and staff the support the services, objectives, and tasks required by Attachment 9.

3.2 EVALUATION FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE Past performance is relevant information regarding an offeror’s actions under previously awarded contracts. It includes the offeror’s overall quality of performance, record of conforming to contract requirements and standards of good workmanship; the offeror’s adherence to contract schedules including the administrative aspects of performance; effectiveness of their quality control programs, responsiveness of management; responsiveness to service calls and effectiveness of corrective action, offeror’s history of reasonable and cooperative behavior, commitment to customer satisfaction, offeror’s success in advancing sustainability programs and overall performance.

The offeror shall submit information in accordance with Attachment 4, Past Performance Worksheet, on a minimum of three (3) and a maximum of five (5) recent contracts that the prime offeror considers most appropriate in demonstrating its ability to perform the proposed efforts. The information submitted shall reference at least three efforts for which the offeror performed as the prime. The remaining two may be submitted for the prime or significant subcontractor. The Government considers a significant subcontractor and/or significant teaming partner to be a company that provides twenty (20) percent or more of the support required, and/or a company that provides a critical portion of the effort required. The offeror shall include rationale supporting their assertion that the past performance effort meets the definitions of recent and relevant, as defined in this section, below.

The offeror shall provide the Attachment 5, Past Performance Questionnaire, to each of the Government customer Points of Contact (POC) identified for each of the past performance efforts submitted. Offerors should request the Government customer POCs complete and e-mail the questionnaires directly to the email addresses referenced in Section 1.6 above and shall be received by the Government by the due date for proposals. Early submission of the Past Performance Questionnaires is encouraged. In order to expedite the assessment process, the offeror may complete Sections I and II of the Past Performance Questionnaire for the convenience of the Government customer POC. The offeror shall not, however, complete any other section of the Past Performance Questionnaire. Once the questionnaires are completed by the customer POCs, the information contained therein shall be considered sensitive and shall not be released to the offeror. The Government is requesting a list (including POC’s name, title, email and phone number) of Past Performance Questionnaires that the offeror distributed to their Government customers within their response. It is the offeror’s responsibility to ensure the Questionnaires are submitted in accordance with the RFP, the contracting office is not responsible for ensuring submission.

Past performance will be considered RECENT if it is currently being performed, or was performed within the past five (5) years (from date of RFP release).

Past performance will be considered RELEVANT if it meets all of the following criteria:

1. Project/contract included analysis of an ISR communications, sensor data transport infrastructure, or computer network enterprise system, and

2. Project/contract required contractor input for future ISR communications, sensor data transport infrastructure, or computer network enterprise system development, and

3. Project/contract dealt with managing classified, sensitive, and/or compartmented information.

Past performance that is deemed recent and relevant will be rated by the past performance evaluation team. The evaluation will assess the following four (4) items:

1. The vendor provided qualified candidates in performance of the services required by the client.

2. The vendor successfully met established project timelines/deadlines.

3. The vendor’s management staff was responsive and proactive in resolving performance issues with the provided candidates.

4. The vendor’s overall performance on the contract.

The past performance evaluation team will rate the offeror using a numeric rating, with adjectival descriptions associated with a numeric value as detailed below for each of the aforementioned four (4) items. The GSA Contracting Officer will calculate a composite score for each individual past performance reference based upon the numeric ratings provided by the past performance evaluation team for each past performance reference submitted. The composite score will be determined by summing the numeric ratings provided by the past performance POC for each of the references on each item and then dividing that total by four (4), i.e. the number of items assessed. The composite score may fall anywhere along this scale, for example, a 4.5. The GSA Contracting Officer will establish an overall Factor level Past Performance rating by summing the composite scores for each evaluated reference and then dividing that number by the number of past performance references submitted. Each offeror’s composite score will be compared to the past performance composite scores of all offerors considered for award.

Past Performance Numeric Ratings/ Adjectival Descriptions:

1= Unsatisfactory – The vendor was/is not capable of meeting the level of performance required for successful completion of the project requirements. Performance does not meet contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element contains a serious problem(s) for which the vendor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

2= Marginal – The vendor has demonstrated that it is capable of meeting some but not all levels of performance required for successful completion of the project requirements. Marginal performance includes both minor and some major deficiencies and requires substantial correction to achieve satisfactory performance. Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the vendor has not yet identified corrective actions. The vendor’s proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

3= Satisfactory – There were/are no major quality issues and the vendor has effectively corrected or mitigated all problems, meeting the contract requirements with no, or minimal, increases in cost. Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the vendor appear or were satisfactory.

4= Very Good – There were/are no, or very minimal, quality issues, and the vendor has exceeded the contract performance requirements without commensurate additional costs to the Government. Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the government's benefit. The contractual performance of the element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the vendor was effective.

5= Exceptional – There are no quality issues, and the vendor has substantially exceeded the contract performance requirements without commensurate additional costs to the Government. Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many requirements to the government's benefit. The contractual performance of the element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the vendor was highly effective.

FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv) states, “In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.” Therefore, failure of the offeror to provide a minimum of three relevant references that meet the criteria listed above, and/or the inability of the Government to complete a minimum of three reference checks, after making a reasonable effort to do so, will result in the offeror being rated as “neutral,” on the overall past performance factor.

The Government may supplement the information from the Government’s Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) for the offeror. The Government may contact members of the acquisition workforce involved with previously awarded Federal contracts. The Government’s contact with other members of the Government acquisition workforce, including Contracting Officer’s, Contracting Officer Representatives (CORs), and Project Managers, can provide valuable insight and supplement the written PPIRS evaluations or provide insight into the contractor’s performance of ongoing contracts.

3.3 EVALUATION FACTOR 3: PRICE

For proposal evaluation purposes, the offeror shall submit prices for TO 01 using Attachment 6, Price Template, Tab 1. Total prices must be supported by detailed labor category information . The total price for TO 01 will be utilized, for evaluation purposes only, as the total evaluated price of the IDIQ. Prices and rates used in preparation of TO 01 price proposals must be taken from the rates offered in the proposed price schedule, Attachment 6, tab 2 (see next paragraph). The offeror does not need to use all of the prices and rates in the price schedule when preparing the TO 01 price proposal. The offeror shall state if any or all of TO 01 can be performed for a FFP basis. Proposals shall include all assumptions made by the offeror in arriving at the proposed price for TO 01.

In addition to the prices mentioned above, the proposal shall include a completed price schedule in Attachment 6, tab 2, listing all of the labor categories and labor rates the offeror proposes to use to perform the work under this IDIQ and subsequent task orders. Offerors shall submit their Labor Category pricing rates as a Firm-Fixed Price (FFP) noting that these FFP rates may be utilized during performance of this IDIQ contract on a T&M type task order or line item. The pricing schedule should be divided into five segments should the offeror desire to propose price changes from year to year. The pricing schedule rates identified on Attachment 6, tab 2, will not factor into the total evaluated price, but will be evaluated to determine whether or not the rates are fair and reasonable. The pricing schedule proposed using Attachment 6, tab 2, will be incorporated into the resultant IDIQ contract for use on all future task orders and should be inclusive of all LCATS required in performance of this IDIQ and subsequent task orders.

· Pricing Sheet: The Government will only accept pricing on the provided Attachment 6. Offerors shall complete all tabs (TO 01 pricing, FFP Pricing Schedule, and T&M Pricing Schedule) within the pricing sheet and ensure mathematical computations are correct, if applicable. Errors in addition or multiplication may be considered nonresponsive to this RFP.

· Offerors shall propose a “blended” fully loaded labor rates for each labor category being proposed.

· Offerors’ quotes shall remain valid for a minimum of 120 days from the date of submission.

a. The Government may award the IDIQ contract after proposal evaluations without further exchange of information. The offeror shall submit their price submission in accordance with the Government provided PricingTemplate (Attachment 6) being sure to complete all required cells and tabs. As outlined by the Government provided Pricing Template (Attachment 6), the price proposal provides a price breakdown by labor categories and rates. The Government will furnish the estimated Not-To-Exceed amount for Other Direct Costs and Travel and the contractor is not permitted to alter these provided “plug” amounts.

b. Options. The IDIQ contract will consist of a five-year ordering period, therefore options under FAR 52.217-9 are not applicable to the IDIQ contract. Options may be applicable at the task order level and will be evaluated at the task order level in those instances. FAR clause 52.217-8 will not be included at the IDIQ level but may be applicable at the order level; in those cases, evaluation of the option will be completed at the task order level.

c. All pricing submissions shall be provided in Microsoft Excel format. Failure to provide pricing in the Excel format may result in immediate removal from competition. Offeror’s are required to complete the pricing template (Attachment 6).

d. The Government has provided Not to Exceed (NTE) amounts in the Pricing Template for Travel and Other Direct Costs (ODCs). The totals for Travel and ODCs shall remain as pre-filled by the Government. Any changes to these amounts will be reverted back to the original amounts prior to the price evaluation. Profit or fee will not be permitted on travel or ODCs. Travel and ODCs will be reimbursed on a Cost Reimbursable basis.

e. If modifications are made to the Government provided pricing spreadsheet (Attachment 6), they shall be clearly marked, along with an explanation of the modification.

f. The contractor should ensure that the price volume is consistent with the technical submission in all respects. The information in the price submission may be shared with the technical evaluators to determine if pricing is reasonably aligned with the proposed labor mix to perform the duties as required by the SOW.

g. The place of performance under this SOW varies. Reference should be made to section 5.2 of the SOW.

h. Contractors are encouraged to provide price discounts.

i. All prices proposed shall be inclusive of all costs (i.e., labor, fringe, H&W, overhead,G&A), fees, and profit associated with each rate.

4. EVALUATION PROCESS/BASIS OF AWARD: The resultant IDIQ contract is to be awarded in accordance with FAR Part 12, FAR Part 15, and FAR Part 16. The acquisition evaluation will be conducted utilizing a Best Value Tradeoff (BVTO) Approach, which seeks to select an offer with the best value to meet the Government’s need. Best value is defined as the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the Government’s estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirement, in accordance with FAR 2.101.

This is a competitive BVTO source selection under Subpart FAR 12.6 and FAR Part 15 in which competing offeror’s technical and past performance, when combined, are significantly more important than price. The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an assessment of Technical, Past Performance, and Price factors. A contract may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by the RFP) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and sub factors, to represent the best value to the Government.

This contract is a competitive full and open procurement. The Government intends to award one (1) IDIQ contract with a $250 Million ceiling; however, the Government reserves the right to make no award at all. This acquisition will result in an IDIQ contract allowing for both FFP and T&M task orders, with cost reimbursable line items for Travel and ODCs. The Government will review the proposals for responsiveness. If a proposal is non-responsive, then it will not be considered for award. All proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the terms of this solicitation as outlined by this RFP and associated attachments.

4.1. EVALUATION APPROACH:

The Government seeks to award to the offeror who gives the Government the greatest confidence that it will best meet, or exceed, the requirements. This may result in award to a higher rated, higher priced offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the CO reasonably determines that the technical and/or overall business approach and/or past performance of the higher price offeror outweighs the cost difference. The SSA will base the source selection decision on an assessment of proposals against all source selection evaluation criteria outlined in section 3 above. While the Government source selection evaluation team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process. Before an offeror’s proposal will be evaluated for best value, they must demonstrate meeting the required technical capability. Only those contractors meeting the technical capability will be considered for award.

The Government intends to award without discussions. Accordingly, offerors are advised to submit proposals that are fully and clearly acceptable without additional information. However, if during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, a competitive range may be established of the most highly rated proposals for efficiency purposes. If discussions are necessary, the Government will issue Evaluation Notices (ENs), as necessary, to offerors within the competitive range, if established. ENs will be sent electronically to offerors to ensure complete understanding of any discrepancies. Any necessary page changes to the offeror’s proposals will be obtained prior to concluding discussions. Throughout the discussion process, the Government will document any changes in ratings and total evaluated price. Discussions shall be conducted with prime offerors only. Offeror responses to ENs and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. If the offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the FPR are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (for example, the relevance of past performance information) or respond to adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system. Communication conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions and the Contracting Officer (CO) reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.

4.2. RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF FACTORS:

Non-price factors, when combined, are significantly more important than the price factor.

5. ATTACHMENTS:

5.1. Attachment 1 - Statement of Work (SOW)

5.2. Attachment 2 - Question Template

5.3. Attachment 3 - Staffing Qualifications Matrix

5.4. Attachment 4- Past Performance Worksheet

5.5. Attachment 5- Past Performance Questionnaire

5.6. Attachment 6- Pricing Template

5.7. Attachment 7- Subfactor 2- Scenario

5.8. Attachment 8- Solicitation DD 254

5.9. Attachment 9- Task Order 01 PWS

5.10. Attachment 10- Technical Capability Evaluation Matrix

6. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS:

6.1. Small Business Subcontracting Plan

Large businesses responding to this solicitation shall submit a subcontracting plan as part of their response IAW FAR 52.219-9 and FAR 52.219-16. Small businesses responding to this solicitation are not required to submit a small business subcontracting plan.

· For purposes of this requirement, the following small business subcontracting goals are provided:

· Small Business (SB): 24 %

· Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB): 3 %

· HUBZone Small Business (HUBZone): 3%

· Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB): 5 %

· Woman-Owned Small Business (WOSB): 5 %

6.2. Organizational Conflict of Interest

Contractor and subcontractor personnel performing work under this IDIQ contract and subsequent task orders may receive, have access to, or participate in the development of proprietary or source selection information (e.g., cost or pricing information, budget information or analyses, specifications, and/ or work statements, etc.) which may create a current or subsequent Organizational Conflict of Interests (OCI) as defined in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 9.5, Organizational and Consultant Conflicts of Interest. The Contractor shall notify the Contracting Officer immediately whenever it becomes aware that such access or participation may result in any actual or potential OCI and shall promptly submit a plan to the Contracting Officer to avoid or mitigate any such OCI. The Contractor’s mitigation plan shall be determined to be acceptable solely at the discretion of the Contracting Officer and in the event the Contracting Officer unilaterally determines that any such OCI cannot be satisfactorily avoided or mitigated, the Contracting Officer may put in effect other remedies as he or she deems necessary including prohibiting the Contractor from participation in subsequent contracted requirements which may be affected by the OCI. In accepting and performing the work required by this contract and all modifications thereto, the Contractor certifies that such work does not constitute or create a conflict of interest due to other work being performed by its firm. The contractor shall ensure that its employees sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement.

6.3. Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC)

In accordance with the DoD issued interim rule effective November 30, 2020, contractor entities are required to apply the security requirements of NIST Special Publication (SP) 800-171 to covered contractor information systems as required in DFARS clause 252.204-7012. Contractors are also required to achieve a specific CMMC level for their enterprise network or segment. The is being implemented using a two-pronged approach with contractors first required to complete an implementation assessment for NIST SP 800-171 and load the results in the Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS) within the DoD Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE). Second, contractors will need to obtain CMMC certification at the appropriate level. CMMC certification requirements are required to be flowed down to subcontractors at all tiers, based on the sensitivity of the unclassified information flowed down to each subcontractor.

To comply with the DFARS 252.204-7012 clause, the GSA Contracting Officer will verify an offeror’s current NIST SP 800-171 DoD Assessment summary level score is posted in SPRS. An offeror is required to possess at least a “Basic” certification in order to be eligible for award of this resultant contract.

7. TERMS AND CONDITIONS: Note, This IDIQ contract includes clauses that are applicable to all of the order contract types that are anticipated and approved for use. Only prescribed clauses will apply to an individual order based on its specific application or contract type.

7.1. IDIQ CONTRACT TERMS AND CONDITIONS: All applicable IDIQ contract clauses and terms and conditions from the resultant IDIQ award will be considered incorporated under resultant task orders.

7.2. PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE: The following provisions are incorporated by reference with the same force and effect as if provided in full text:

7.3. PROVISIONS IN FULL TEXT: The following provisions are incorporated in full text:

FAR 52.252-1 Solicitation Provisions Incorporated by Reference (Feb 1998) This solicitation incorporates one or more solicitation provisions by reference, with the same force and effect as if they were given in full text. Upon request, the Contracting Officer will make their full text available. The offeror is cautioned that the listed provisions may include blocks that must be completed by the offeror and submitted with its quotation or offer. In lieu of submitting the full text of those provisions, the offeror may identify the provision by paragraph identifier and provide the appropriate information with its quotation or offer. Also, the full text of a solicitation provision may be accessed electronically at this/these address(es): https://www.acquisition.gov (End of Provision)

FAR 52.216-1 Type of Contract (Apr 1984) The Government contemplates award of a single award indefinite, delivery, indefinite quantity contract resulting from this solicitation.

(End of Provision)

FAR 52.204-24 Representation Regarding Certain Telecommunications and Video Surveillance Services or Equipment.

As prescribed in 4.2105(a), insert the following provision:

Representation Regarding Certain Telecommunications and Video Surveillance Services or Equipment (AUG 2020) The Offeror shall not complete the representation at paragraph (d)(1) of this provision if the Offeror has represented that it “does not provide covered telecommunications equipment or services as a part of its offered products or services to the Government in the performance of any contract, subcontract, or…