TSO_IT_Services_Contract_-_Section_L_and_M_12082014.docx

SECTION L – INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

L.1 General Information L.1.1 Award Without Discussion The Government intends to evaluate proposals and make award without discussions. Proposals should contain the Offeror’s best terms. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions and request proposal revisions, if it is determined to be necessary. If a competitive range is established, the Government 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.

L.1.2 Single Award It is the Government’s intent to award one (1) contract. An Offeror will only be eligible to receive one (1) award and shall not submit more than one (1) proposal in response to this RFP.

L.1.3 Incorporation of Offers into Contract Portions of the successful Offeror’s management approach, technical approach and/or price proposal may be incorporated into the contract. Where portions of the Offeror’s management approach, technical approach and/or price proposal are incorporated into the resulting contract, the successful Offeror will be responsible for delivering in accordance with both the PWS and the provisions of its offer.

L.2 Proposal Construct and Content Offer’s proposal shall be prepared/assembled in three principal parts, or volumes, which should contain substantive details to sufficiently describe how PWS objectives and performance levels will be met. Offer’s proposals will be organized, formatted and limited as follows:

Introduction – NTE 5 pages Volume I Management and Staffing Approach – NTE 45 pages; additional pages allowed for the Staffing Plan and Key Position resumes using government provided templates Volume II Technical Approach and Past Performance – NTE 45 pages Volume III Cost – No page limitation The Introduction, Volume I and Volume II portions will be provided in MS Word 2003 or newer (save using compatibility mode). Volume III will be provided using MS Excel 2003 or newer. Offeror’s will provide four (4) paper and (4) CD/DVD copies of their proposal.

L.2.1 Volume I - Management Approach and Staffing Plan The offeror’s proposal shall include the following details to enable the government’s evaluation of offeror’s Management Approach and Staffing Plan (PWS 3.2):

· Personnel requirements

· Activities to replace key and non-key personnel who may leave the contract

· Activities to maintain a stable work force for the contracted period

· Activities to expand the work force to address increases in assigned workload (option CLINs) and parallel operations in one or more locations

· Activities to supervise, evaluate, and direct the performance of employees assigned to perform work under the contract

· Contractor’s training plan for new technical personnel

· Contractor’s internal management communication lines

· Contractor’s subcontract integration approach

· Contractor personnel roles and responsibilities at all levels for operational continuity

· Quality Assurance Plan

The offeror’s proposal shall describe the proposed Management Approach and Staffing Plan, demonstrating an understanding of obtaining, retaining, maintaining, training, and certifying a high-quality staff. Description shall include how the offeror plans to provide services throughout the contract period of performance, including transition in and out, ramp up, timely replacement of personnel, and obtaining additional personnel with minimal notice.

L.2.1.1 Sub-factor: Management Approach (PWS 3.2) – The offeror’s proposal will describe their overall management approach to include transition, CLIN and subcontract management, workforce recruitment, retention, and training.

L.2.1.1.1 Transition Plan (PWS 3.2.4) – The offeror’s proposal should describe their plan to transition work activities, within ninety days of contract award, in order to efficiently and effectively provide experienced and skilled resources with the least disruption to ongoing TSO system sustainment and support activities (i.e. Software Release activities).

L.2.1.1.2 Recapture Plan (PWS 3.2) – The offeror’s proposal should describe how they intend to leverage the existing pool of systems expertise to successfully accomplish the objectives and tasks at the required performance level identified in the PWS. The offeror’s proposal should be IAW FAR 52.222-17 L.2.1.1.3 Workforce Training, Skillset Certification Maintenance & Continuing Education (PWS 3.2) – The offeror’s proposal should clearly articulate how the offeror intends to sustain and/or improve the capabilities of the proposed workforce.

L.2.1.2 Sub-factor: Staffing Plan (PWS 1.2 & 3) – The offeror’s proposal should describe the proposed staffing in sufficient detail in order to demonstrate an understanding of obtaining, retaining and maintaining a high-quality staff (in accordance with the minimum labor qualifications identified in Section J) necessary to perform the work described in the PWS.

Experienced and Skilled Workforce (PWS 3 & Appendix A) – The offeror’s proposal should describe how they intend to bring to bear a mix of experienced and skilled IT resources to assist the TSO with systems sustainment and support. The offeror’s proposal should include resumes for Key Positions (PWS 2.2) using government provided template.

Employee Compensation Plan – The offeror’s proposal should include details of its employee compensation plan pursuant to FAR 52.222-46 L.2.2. Volume II – Technical Approach and Past Performance Proposal The offeror’s proposal will describe their technical approach and associated past performance integrating into a well-established integrated product team (IPT) environment while working within an engineering and software development best practices framework. The offeror’s proposal will further demonstrate the ability to produce and deliver quality results that support the TSO objectives as described in the PWS in the course of adherence to and maintenance of a strong information security posture.

L.2.2.1 Sub-factor: Operating in an Integrated Product Team (IPT) Environment (PWS 1.2.1 & 3.2.5) – The offeror’s proposal shall describe their ability to integrate staff into dispersed collaborative multifunctional teams who provide design, development, production and maintenance support for like business systems as described in the PWS appendix A. The description will articulate the Offeror’s technical approach with respect to the quality of performance (compliance with requirements, accuracy of reporting, technical excellences/awards, meeting milestones, responsiveness to technical direction, deliverable completion) in a GOGOCS or like organizational structures and operating environments.

L.2.2.1.1 GOGOCS – The offeror’s proposal should describe how their technical approach will support and benefit the key technical positions specified in the PWS section 2.1, mitigate the risks associated with the performance of tasks in section 3, and maximize process capabilities delineated in Appendix C.

L.2.2.1.2 Geographical Separation – The offeror’s proposal will describe and demonstrate its ability to coordinate and collaborate effectively while stationed in the key positions described in section 2 of the PWS and achieve the objectives delineated in section 3 of the PWS to ensure common purpose, performance objectives, and approaches are understood and affected in the virtual teams employed by the TSO. Further, the offeror’s proposal should clearly articulate an understanding of the key concepts of an IPT and effect virtual team formation in their development and delivery of products and services within Government owned and operated business, technical, and process constraints.

L.2.2.1.3 Innovative Solutions/Greenfield Engineering – The offeror’s proposal should demonstrate capability to present thoughtful cost-effective and innovative engineering, design, and project management solutions related to software & systems engineering and integration for mid-tier & mainframe platforms. The offeror’s proposal should also demonstrate an understanding of the PWS Appendix C constraints and how the interrelated nature of those constraints afford opportunities to introduce new ideas, methodologies, processes, and technologies into the TSO software development, systems engineering, and technology support structure and services. The offeror’s proposal should communicate its practical approach to identifying and recommending new opportunities and relate previous successes.

L.2.2.2 Sub-factor: Software Development & Systems Engineering – The offeror’s proposal should clearly describe the ability to meet customer needs and delivering quality products and services following defined processes and implementing industry, software engineering, and process improvement best practices. The offeror’s proposal should demonstrate a high level competence while engaging in the engineering activities specified in the PWS section 3.3 and success in satisfying user needs and system performance.

L.2.2.2.1 Software Development Lifecycle (SDLC) in Software and Systems Engineering – The offeror’s proposal should describe their ability in using agile, iterative, and sequential SDLC and how their experience will support sustaining the high quality systems listed in section 1.2.1 of the PWS and described in Appendix A to ensure customer expectations are met, change requests are completed within time and cost constraints, the systems continue to work effectively and efficiently in the current technology infrastructure and system enhancements are cost-effective and economical to maintain. The offeror’s proposal should substantiate knowledge in and performance of Agile Scrum and Waterfall software development lifecycle methodologies and the Offeror’s ability to leverage the advantages (prioritization, planning, communication, documentation, and risk management) both methodologies provide.

L.2.2.2.2 Capability Maturity Model Integration – The offeror’s proposal should substantiate knowledge in and performance efficiency & effectiveness in applying the CMMI for Development maturity model to information technology support for software development, systems engineering, maintenance, and operations. The offeror’s proposal should describe familiarity with and experiences in applying continuous process improvement in developing software and delivering products and services to their customers. Specific consideration should be given to explaining how the offeror has succeeded in supporting its customers’ organizational process improvement plans and how the Offeror intends to leverage its experiences and successes to reinforce the TSO process improvement program through performance of the tasks defined in section 3.4 of the PWS.

L.2.2.2.3 Information Technology Infrastructure Library (ITIL) Service Management Framework – The offeror’s proposal should demonstrate a high level of expertise in its technical approach to supporting the full lifecycle of IT services provided by the TSO as described in PWS sections 3.5, 3.7, and contained in the help desk guidelines of Appendix C. The offeror’s technical approach description should include considerations given to strategy, design, transition, operation and continuous improvement of IT services.

L.2.2.3 Sub-factor: Compliancy – The offeror’s proposal should indicate familiarity with and an understanding of the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA) and Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA) requirements and how the Offeror intends to support the Cybersecurity objective identified in PWS section 3.6. The offeror’s proposal should demonstrate experience with supporting and providing security solutions that are acceptable, compliant with regulation, policy and meet adequate security for federal information systems.

L.2.2.3.1 Clean Audit – The offeror’s proposal should provide sufficient relevant detail regarding its ability to implement and maintain internal controls as they are applied to the PWS performance objectives delineated in Section 3. The offeror’s proposal should demonstrate experience and success in supporting audit compliance through adherence to established information system and business process application controls including development and proper implementation of control techniques.

L.2.2.3.2 Cybersecurity – The offeror’s proposal should describe experience and performance in supporting a cybersecurity posture that ensures the confidentiality, integrity and availability of data stored and processed on information systems. The offeror’s proposal should demonstrate experience in implementing the standard Automated Information security controls as well as the structured set of privacy controls, based on best practices, in compliance with applicable federal laws, Executive Orders, directives, instructions, regulations, policies, standards, guidance, and TSO constraints . The offeror’s proposal should also demonstrate an ability to appropriately apply security concepts and principles expressed in the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) standards, guidelines, and publications to meet the TSO mission objectives. Offeror will describe its experience and performance in safeguarding personally identifiable information (PII) and its compliancy record in regard to adherence and implementation of the FISMA framework and supporting standards.

L.2.2.3.3 DIACAP/RMF (C&A) – The offeror’s proposal should describe an understanding of DIACAP, as well as the DIACAP replacement Risk Management Framework (RMF), and the process by which the framework is applied to the systems described in the PWS Appendix A. The description should indicate a full understanding of applying the RMF process (Categorize System, Select Security Controls, Implement Security Controls, Assess Security Controls, Authorize System, and Monitor Security Controls) and an understanding of the DoDI 8510.01, NIST SP 800 - 37, 53, and 53A.

L.2.2.4 Sub-factor: Past Performance – The Offeror shall submit three (3) summaries of past performance similar in size, scope, and/or complexity which were completed within the last 48 months as either a prime or sub-contractor. These summaries shall specifically address:

· Company background and understanding of TSO processes, constraints, operations, resource allocation, approach, methodologies, organization, and management relevant to the work anticipated under this solicitation

· The role that any proposed key personnel played

· The primary Government organization that received their services and provide accurate contact information for that person for each past performance summary submitted.

Offerors are advised that the Government may use and evaluate any independently obtained past performance data from the following sources:

· Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS)

· Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs)

· Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) in addition to all recent and relevant past performance data provided by the Offeror

· Past performance on contracts not submitted by the Offeror

Irrespective of limitations, all contracts active within the past five (5) years that have been terminated for default, received show cause or cure notices, had a defective pricing or fraud action initiated by the Government, or have had products accepted on a non-conforming basis must be reported.

L.2.2.4.1 Past Performance Questionnaire:

The offeror shall forward a copy of the “Past Performance Questionnaire” (Attachment 1) to the cognizant Program Manager and KO of the Government agency or commercial entity for each contract or subcontract. Any questionnaires submitted by any entity other than the responsible government agency or commercial entity will not be considered. Advise the reporting government agency or commercial entity that:

· The completed questionnaire is to be considered source selection information in accordance with FAR 2.101 and 3.104.

· If a subcontractor is submitting a past performance questionnaire, ensure the name of the prime contractor is included on the document.

· The completed questionnaires are to be returned to the following address:

Email: Nichole.Wycheseawood@usmc.mil U.S. Mail: Marine Corps Systems Command (MARCORSYSCOM) 2200 Lester Street Quantico, VA 22134

· Past Performance Questionnaires are due no later than the closing date for submission of offers.

· Offerors shall advise the responding Government agency or commercial entity of the applicable date.

In accordance with FAR 15.306, the Offeror may be given the opportunity to discuss adverse past performance information obtained from this questionnaire if it has not previously responded through the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) or a similar system. However, the names of individuals providing the information shall not be disclosed.

L.2.2.5 Sub-factor: Small Business Participation Plan - The contractor shall address their dedication to include Small Businesses in their overall proposal and shall include:

· The identity of the firms specifically identified in the proposal (i.e., Name, address and business status of firms included in the Small Business Participation Plan).

· The extent to which the proposed Plan meets or exceeds the DoD minimum Small Business Goal of 25% of the total aggregate value of the contract. The total aggregate contract value will be derived as follows: Each CLIN unit price of Section B will be multiplied by the CLIN quantity. (Unit Price)(Quantity)=Total Aggregate Contract Value. (NOTE: Small Businesses should include their own participation in their goal information.)

· The extent to which the proposed Plan meets or exceeds the DoD minimum Small Disadvantaged Business Goal of 5% of the total aggregate value of the contract.

· The realism of the proposed Plan (i.e., how the goals will be obtained).

· Their past performance complying with requirements of the clauses at FAR 52.219-8 – Utilization of Small Business Concerns, and FAR 52.219-9 – Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

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

· Offerors proposing an SDB Goal of less than 5% of the total aggregate value of the contract shall also provide a narrative explaining those extenuating circumstances concerning why they cannot propose a 5% SDB Goal.

· Prior performance information in small business subcontracting to include ACO rating (DLA Form 640) and current SF 295.

· (NOTE: Small Businesses should include their own participation level on prior contracts, as well as subcontracting information (if available) in lieu of an SF 295.)

· Offerors shall provide a detailed description of the supplies/services for each firm, the names of those firms, and the designation as SB, SDB, WOB, SDVOSB, HUB Zone.

· (NOTE: Small Businesses should include those supplies/services they will be delivering/performing under the contract.)

Any targets will be incorporated into and become part of any resulting contract. Contractors with SDB participation targets shall be required to report SDB participation. The Contractor shall be required to notify the contracting officer of any substitutions of firms that are not SDB.

When an evaluation assesses the extent that Small Businesses are specifically identified in proposals, the Small Businesses considered in the evaluation shall be listed in any subcontracting plan submitted pursuant to FAR 52.219-9 to facilitate compliance with DFARS 252.219-7003(g).

L.2.3 Volume III – Cost Proposal The Offeror shall submit a cost proposal that addressed the requirements in PWS. The offeror agrees to hold the prices in its offer firm for 180 calendar days from the date specified for receipt of offers, unless another time period is specified in an addendum to the solicitation. The Cost Proposal shall contain the information specific to the below sub-factors and elements, utilizing the template provided in Section L (Attachment 1).

The offeror’s Cost Volume III shall consist of the following:

a. Signed Standard Form 33, titled Solicitation, Offer and Award with blocks 12 through 17 completed by the offeror.

b. Completed Section B “Pricing Schedule,” reflecting the total proposed cost for the supplies and services detailed therein, inclusive of all costs (direct labor, travel, subcontractors/consultants, other direct costs), overhead, general and administrative (G&A) expenses, and profit/fee.

c. Completed Section K - Offeror’s Representations and Certifications

d. Subcontracting Plan

e. List of all subcontractors, who may submit fully disclosed cost proposals independently.

L.2.3.1 Substantiation of Cost – Adequate substantiation is necessary for the Government to evaluate the cost and scope of the Offeror’s estimate for realism, reasonableness and completeness, and to ensure all solicitation requirements are included in the Cost Proposal. This will facilitate the efficient evaluation of the Cost Proposal. The burden of proof for cost and price credibility rests with the Offeror. The Offeror shall explain all ground rules and assumptions, as well as mathematical (or other) estimating methods that affect its pricing. Any apparent inconsistencies or anomalies should be fully explained. Example topics to be addressed include, but are not limited to, company investments, programmatic variables (e.g., inflation/escalation, location, make/buy decisions, prime/subcontractor relationships, and business base concerns), etc. After receipt of proposals, the Government may request more detailed information, as necessary.

L.2.3.2 Historical Data – The Offeror shall provide overhead rates for the past 5 years and a forecast for next 5 years.

L.2.3.3 Escalation of Direct Labor Rates – Show direct labor hours by the appropriate direct labor categories proposed. Clearly indicate the number of hours and the unburdened hourly rate associated with each labor category. Each fully burdened labor rate shall include the proposed labor rate and any applicable burdens (indirect rates). The Offeror shall also provide a narrative explaining the basis for all the direct labor rates, as well as any escalation factors used, and state whether these rates represent a Forward Pricing Rate Recommendation (FPRR) or a Forward Pricing Rate Agreement (FPRA), noting the date of the agreement. Rates should be shown separately for the Offeror and each subcontractor.

L.2.3.4 Basis of Estimate – Include supporting documentation showing the basis of estimate (BOE) for the proposed hours. Provide a description of credentials (specific education and experience requirements) for any proposed labor categories.

L.2.3.5 Cost is Realistic and Reasonable – Offeror’s are encouraged to submit proposals based on realistic management and technical approaches and pricing. The Government will view unrealistic proposals as indicative of a lack of understanding of the requirements. The Offeror shall provide details of all proposed indirect costs and burdens for all Cost Reimbursable CLINs. Within the spreadsheet, the Offeror shall share formulas and functions, avoiding output-type “value only” cells. If links are utilized, supply those referenced files. Spreadsheets shall not be locked or protected; formulas shall be intact to show mathematical operations.

L.2.3.6 Realistic (Complete) – Indicate the basis for the labor overhead rate, and provide supporting documentation. If more than one labor overhead rate is proposed, or if other indirect labor rates apply (e.g., separate fringe benefits rate), indicate that in the cost proposal, along with those bases.

L.2.3.7 Subcontractor Pricing – The offeror shall provide the cost/pricing data proposed for subcontractors. If the proposed subcontractor does not want to disclose detailed pricing information to its prime contractor, then the subcontractor shall submit complete cost proposal, as set forth herein for the prime contractor, directly to the contract specialist identified for this solicitation. However, the prime shall indicate in its proposal the subcontractor costs as disclosed to the prime by the subcontractor.

L.2.3.8 Reasonable (Allowable & Allocable) - The method of computation and application of indirect costs will provide a basis for evaluation of the reasonableness of proposed rates and rates used. Provide details of the expense pools and allocation bases verifiable to the offeror’s business plan and supporting data. Show the proposed amounts for burden(s), including fringe benefits, if appropriate. The proposed material overhead, if appropriate, should be shown separately. For G&A costs, show the proposed allocation base and proposed G&A amount. If more than one G&A rate is proposed, or if the offeror has other indirect rate(s), the offeror is to indicate it in the cost proposal, along with the base amount to which any G&A rate is applied.

L.2.3.9 Profit/Fee - The offeror shall clearly indicate profit/fee proposed and shall provide its rationale for the proposed profit/fee. Prime contractors shall not use subcontractor fee dollars in their fee base and fee is prohibited on all Other Direct Costs. In addition, FCCM shall be excluded from the Fee calculation. All fees to be paid under this contract will be paid to the prime contractor for disbursement to their subcontractor. No subcontractor proposal shall contract an amount for fee. The prime contractor shall arrange the manner which the company will distribute fee to each subcontractor. The Government will not be involved in the distribution of fee to subcontractors.

L.2.3.10 Other Direct Costs (ODCs) – The Government will reimburse travel and per diem costs on the basis of allowable costs actually incurred up to the maximum daily equivalent allowed for a Government employee IAW the Department of Defense (DoD) Civilian Personnel Joint Travel Regulation, promulgated by the General Services Administration. Offerors may include allowable, allocable, and reasonable charges in accordance with FAR 52.216-7, “Allowable Cost and Payment,” for burden on cost-reimbursable travel and per diem costs.

L.2.3.11 General-Purpose Items – The cost of general-purpose items required to conduct normal business operations will not be considered allowable ODCs in the performance of this contract. The following types of costs are not directly reimbursable: communications devices and services (unless, per contractor's DCAA-approved accounting system, such costs are project-driven and may be directly reimbursed), modems, reproduction machines, word processing equipment, personal computers, computer software, Internet access charges, facsimile machines, commercial carrier charges, pagers, and other general purpose office equipment and supplies..

L.2.3.12 Cost Accounting System – The offeror shall provide evidence that its accounting system is capable of tracing and segregating cost information in sufficient detail to execute a cost reimbursement-type contract. This evidence may include an approval letter from either DCMA or DCAA. For cases in which the offeror does not currently have a DCMA- or DCAA-approved accounting system, the offeror shall describe what action it has taken to obtain said approval of its accounting system prior to Contract award.

L.2.3.13 Defense Contract Audit Agency – Offeror’s are encouraged to submit copies of their cost proposals to cognizant DCAA office concurrently with their submission to the Contracting Office. Any proposed subcontractors are encouraged to do the same. If the offeror is currently being audited, or has been audited by DCAA within the past twelve months, it is requested that the name, phone number, and location of the assigned DCAA office be furnished with the cost proposal, along with the DCAA audit number.

L.2.3.14 Investments – The Government is not soliciting any investments. However, in order to properly assess a proposed price that appears low due to a corporate decision proposed by the Offeror to absorb costs, e.g. lower than usual burdens or rates, the Offeror shall propose a clause which specifically states the fiscal adjustment and identifies the Offeror’s liability. At the discretion of the Government, this clause may be incorporated into the contract.

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1 General Information The Government will analyze the offeror’s cost proposal against the requirements of Section L. The Cost volume shall be evaluated, but shall not be scored or otherwise combined with other aspects of the proposal evaluation. Cost will be evaluated using various cost and/or price analysis techniques, IAW FAR Part 15.404.

M.2 Proposal Construct and Content The failure of an Offeror to adhere to the requirements of Section L, including page limits and government provided templates, may cause the offeror's proposal to be non-compliant with the RFP instructions, resulting in the elimination of the Offeror's proposal from further consideration in the evaluation.

M.2.1 Volume I - Management Approach and Staffing Plan The offeror Volume I proposal will be evaluated on the offeror’s ability to effectively provide the services outlined in the PWS. The offeror’s proposal will be in the prescribed format, contain all required information and remain within set page limits.

M.2.1.1 Sub-factor: Management Approach – Evaluation of this sub-factor will be based on the offeror’s effective transition, CLIN and subcontract management, workforce recruitment, retention, and training. Under this sub-factor offeror’s proposals will be evaluated on the following:

M.2.1.1.1 Transition Plan – The effectiveness and efficiency of offeror’s transition activities.

M.2.1.1.2 Minimize Operational Disruption – The offeror’s ability to quickly and effectively integrate incoming staff to TSO day-to-day operations.

M.2.1.1.3 Recapture Plan – The offeror’s ability to retain existing systems and technical experts.

M.2.1.1.4 Workforce Training, Skillset & Certification Maintenance & Continuing Education – The offeror’s ability to provide and maintain a well-trained, skilled and appropriately certified staff.

M.2.1.2 Sub-factor: Staffing Plan – Evaluation of this sub-factor will be based on the offeror’s ability to provide a high-quality, experienced staff and employee compensation M.2.2 Volume II - Technical Approach and Past Performance The offeror Volume II proposal will be evaluated on the offeror’s ability to integrate into the TSO GOGOCS IPT environment and effectively produce quality results.

M.2.2.1 Sub-factor: Operating in an Integrated Product Team (IPT) Environment – Evaluation of this sub-factor will be based on offeror’s ability to integrate staff into dispersed multifunctional teams. Under this sub-factor offeror’s proposals will be evaluated on the following:

M.2.2.1.1 GOGOCS – The offeror’s ability to support key technical positions, mitigate risks, and maximize process capabilities.

M.2.2.1.2 Geographical Separation – The offeror’s ability to coordinate and collaborate effectively in a virtual team environment and its ability to make effective use of available communication technologies.

M.2.2.1.3 Innovative Solutions/Greenfield Engineering – The offeror’s capacity and ability to communicate and effect SDLC innovations.

M.2.2.2 Sub-factor: Software Development & Systems Engineering – Evaluation of this sub-factor will be based on offeror’s track record of delivering quality products and services that meet the needs of the customer. Under this sub-factor offeror’s proposals will be evaluated on the following:

M.2.2.2.1 Software Development Lifecycle (SDLC) in Software and Systems Engineering – The offeror’s ability to efficiently and effectively process system change requests through multiple SDLC methodologies.

M.2.2.2.2 Capability Maturity Model Integration – The offeror’s ability to support and reinforce continuous process improvement.

M.2.2.2.3 Information Technology Infrastructure Library (ITIL) Service Management Framework – The Offeror’s ability to improve and enhance systems operations and support services.

M.2.2.3 Sub-factor: Compliancy – Evaluation of this sub-factor will be based on offeror’s ability to support the implementation and sustainment of information and security controls. Under this sub-factor offeror’s proposals will be evaluated on the following:

M.2.2.3.1 Clean Audit – The offeror’s ability to support the implementation of information system general and business process application controls.

M.2.2.3.2 Cybersecurity – The offeror’s ability to affect a cybersecurity posture that ensures confidence in the confidentiality, integrity and availability of data stored and processed on information systems.

M.2.2.3.3 DIACAP/RMF (C&A) – The offeror’s ability to support the DIACAP/RMF process to effectively ensure timely authority to operate is achieved.

M.2.2.4 Sub-factor: Past Performance – Under Past Performance the Government will evaluate how well an Offeror has performed similar work. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s (including major subcontractors’) demonstrated past performance in delivering quality products and services and in meeting technical and schedule requirements on products and services deemed relevant to the solicitation requirements. The degree to which the Offeror can demonstrate that it has successfully applied continuous systemic improvement to resolve past performance problems will be evaluated. The Government will consider trends in the number and severity of problems, the effectiveness of corrective actions taken, and the overall work record. Problems not addressed by the Offeror will be considered to still exist.

The Offeror will be evaluated on their submission of three (3) summaries of past performance similar in size, scope, and/or complexity which were completed within the last 48 months as either a prime or sub-contractor.

Offerors are advised that the Government may additionally use and evaluate independently obtained past performance data from the following sources:

· Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS)

· Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs)

· Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) in addition to all recent and relevant past performance data provided by the Offeror

The Government may not necessarily interview all of the sources provided by the Offeror

M.2.2.4.1. Past Performance Relevancy and Confidence

There are four levels of relevancy as shown in Table M.2-1, below. Relevancy will be evaluated with respect to similarity of service, complexity, key management and technical personnel, and teaming arrangements. Strong consideration will be given to an Offeror’s demonstrated in-place programs to manage service personnel at multiple locations and to surge personnel to multiple sites. Information provided should be related to the same or similar programs that the Offeror proposes to use in the performance of this effort. With respect to relevancy, more relevant past performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance.

Table M.2-1:

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

A Performance Confidence Assessment Rating will then be assigned (Table M.2-2), which addresses the Government’s level of confidence in the Offeror’s ability to perform the required effort successfully based on the Offeror’s (including major subcontractors’) relevant past performance and systemic improvement. More relevant past performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the Past Performance Confidence Assessment than past performance of lesser relevance. In the case of an Offeror without a record of past performance, without a record of relevant past performance, or for whom information on past performance is not available, the Offeror will receive a rating of “Unknown” which is considered a “Neutral” rating. When proposals are received from contractor entities (e.g., teams, joint ventures) specifically formed to propose on a particular acquisition, the past performance evaluation will consider each individual team member.

Table M.2-2:

Performance Confidence Assessments

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.

Limited Confidence

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral)

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

M.2.2.5 – Small Business Participation Plan Evaluation

The Government will assess the Offerors level of commitment to Small Business programs. The Offeror’s Small Business Participation Plan will be evaluated on a pass/fail basis. In evaluating the Small Business Participation Plan, the Government will review the following elements:

· The extent to which firms are specifically identified in the proposal (i.e., firms listed by name as a part of the Offeror’s team).

· The extent to which the proposed Plan meets or exceeds the DoD minimum Small Business Goal of 25% of the total aggregate value of the contract. The total aggregate contract value will be derived as follows: Each CLIN unit price of Section B will be multiplied by the CLIN quantity. (Unit Price)(Quantity)=Total Aggregate Contract Value. An Offeror who fails to meet the 25% Small Business Goal requirement is not eligible for award.

· The extent to which the proposed Plan meets or exceeds the DoD minimum Small Disadvantaged Business Goal of 5% of the total aggregate value of the contract.

· The realism of the proposal (i.e., how the goals will be obtained).

· Past performance of the Offerors in complying with requirements of the clauses at FAR 52.219-8 – Utilization of Small Business Concerns, and FAR 52.219-9 – Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

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

M.2.3 Volume III – Cost M.2.3.1 Substantiation of Cost – The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated for realism, reasonableness and completeness, and to ensure all solicitation requirements are included in the Cost Proposal.

M.2.3.2 Historical Data – The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated to ensure overhead rates for the past 5 years and a forecast for next 5 years are provided.

M.2.3.3 Escalation of Direct Labor Rates – The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated to ensure direct labor hours by the appropriate direct labor categories are provided.

M.2.3.4 Basis of Estimate – The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated to ensure supporting documentation showing the basis of estimate (BOE) for the proposed hours is included.

M.2.3.5 Cost is Realistic and Reasonable – The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated to ensure costs are realistic and reasonable.

M.2.3.6 Realistic (Complete) – The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated to ensure the basis for the labor overhead rate, and provide supporting documentation are provided.

M.2.3.7 Subcontractor Pricing – The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated to ensure cost/pricing data proposed for subcontractors is provided.

M.2.3.8 Reasonable (Allowable & Allocable) - The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated to ensure the method of computation and application provide a basis for reasonableness of proposed rates and rates used.

M.2.3.9 Profit/Fee - The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated to ensure profit/fee proposed are rational.

M.2.3.10 Other Direct Costs (ODCs) – The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated to ensure proposed ODCs are rational.

M.2.3.11 General-Purpose Items – The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated to ensure General-Purpose Items are nor proposed.

M.2.3.12 Cost Accounting System – The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated to ensure sufficient evidence its accounting system is capable of tracing and segregating cost information in sufficient detail to execute a cost reimbursement-type contract.

M.2.3.13 Defense Contract Audit Agency – The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated for DCAA audit’s within last 12 months.

M.2.3.14 Investments – The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated to ensure no investments are proposed.