Section_L&M_8_Feb_2017.docx

SECTION L INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS

L.1 General Instructions.

A. The Government anticipates award of a single IDIQ contract as a result of this solicitation on the basis of best value with tradeoffs in accordance with FAR 15.101-1.

B. This contract will require access up to Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information (TS/SCI). Offerors must have an active TS/SCI facility clearance to be eligible for award.

C. Offerors shall not submit more than one (1) proposal in response to this solicitation.

D. Offerors shall confine their submission to essential matters sufficient to define their offer, which will provide an adequate basis for evaluation. Likewise, Offerors are cautioned against general, vague, or unsubstantiated statements, which prevent or render difficult the Government’s evaluation of the proposal. Statements such as "will comply," or "noted and understood" without supporting narrative to define compliance are not acceptable. The Government will not assume that an Offeror possesses any capability, understanding, and/or commitment that is not specifically delineated and supported in its respective proposal.

E. The Offeror shall not include classified material in any proposal.

F. Proposals shall be valid for a period of 180 days from the date of the proposal submission deadline.

G. As prescribed by FAR 52.215-1, the Government may award on the basis of initial offers received without conducting discussions. Therefore, each proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a business and technical standpoint.

H. All proposals, in both paper copies and CD version, shall arrive at the address below NOT LATER THAN 2:00 P.M, local time, Quantico, VA on 24 March 2017. Delivery (hand carried or other delivery method) shall be to the address below. Offerors shall prominently mark all packages used for delivery of proposals with the following statement:

"REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL – SOLICITATION M67854-17-R-7401"

Commanding General Marine Corps Systems Command Material Management Attn: Joseph Butkus, CT 2.7

(703) 432-4036 2201A Willis Street Quantico, VA 22134-6050

NOTE: Packages sent using the US Postal Service take additional time to arrive at this location. Email or facsimile submission will not be accepted.

L.2 Questions.

Questions about the solicitation documents are due no later than 2:00pm Local Time, Quantico VA on 3 March 2017 in the following table format. Questions should be submitted electronically to the Contract Specialist at joseph.butkus@usmc.mil. Please do not bundle multiple questions into one. Questions received after the above time and date are unlikely to be addressed. No questions will be answered via telephone call. Government responses will be posted electronically via amendment to the solicitation.

L.3 Proposal Format.

This Request for Proposal is written in the Uniform Contract Format described in FAR 15.204-1. Sections A through J comprise the model contract. The Government advises prospective Offerors to read the terms and conditions of the model contract and all other parts of the solicitation carefully. Proposals shall be prepared using “Times New Roman” 12 point font style on 8½ x 11 inch white paper. Tables and illustrations may use a reduced font style not less than 8 point. Margins shall be no less than one (1) inch on all sides. All material submitted must be no less than single-spaced. Offerors shall ensure that each page provides identification of the submitting Offeror and solicitation number in the header or footer. All pages shall be numbered sequentially. If the Government prints additional copies of the proposal, it may not be printed in full color, so the Offeror shall ensure that all pages are fully legible if printed in black and white or gray-scale. Offerors shall submit a technical and price proposal in accordance with the below page limits. The proposals cannot be in the same binder. Appendixes may not be submitted to supplement the sections listed below and will not be evaluated.

A ceiling on the number of pages in the proposal has been imposed, as indicated below. In the event that an Offeror exceeds the maximum page limitations provided below, the Government will only evaluate the pages that comply with the maximum number prescribed (starting with page one and continuing until the maximum number is reached). The following will not be counted as part of the proposal page limitations: title page, table of contents, acronym list, PWS requirements matrix or glossary, resumes or any required certifications, and tabs that separate sections.

All proposals shall include one original and three copies of the technical volume and one original and one copy of the price volume, all on paper. All proposals shall also include one electronic copy of the complete technical volume on CD-ROM and one electronic copy of the complete price volume on a separate CD-ROM, both using a format which is compatible with Microsoft Office 2010 and Adobe Acrobat for Windows and formatted for a personal computer. The price files on the CD-ROM price volume shall include MS Excel spreadsheets with formulas intact. The Offeror shall ensure that the submitted files are accessible and readable for the Government. If a file cannot be opened or read, the Government reserves the right to find the proposal non-compliant and ineligible for evaluation and award. Do not embed files inside other files.

Late proposals will be handled in accordance with FAR 52.215-1.

Technical Proposal.

Factors 1 through 4 - 20 pages (total, not per factor) Factor 5 - Past Performance - 3 pages Factor 6 – Small Business - 5 pages

Price Proposal.

Executive Summary/Cover Letter - 3 pages Model Contract (Sections A through J) and Section K - unlimited (at a minimum, only Sections A, B and K are needed) Pricing - Unlimited

L.4 Proposal Instructions.

A. Technical Proposal.

The offeror shall provide sufficient information in the technical proposal to allow for an evaluation of the capabilities that the offeror will provide to support the requirement.

Factor 1 – Wargame Planning and Development: The Offeror shall address their approach to Wargame Planning and Development. The Offeror must provide in detail the wargame planning approach that articulates the Offerors understanding of the requirements to perform the planning and development tasks outlined in this PWS. The Offeror shall specifically address sections 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.4 and 3.2.1 in their proposal.

Factor 2 – Wargame Execution: The Offeror shall address their approach to the Wargame Execution. The Offeror must provide in detail the wargame execution methodology that articulates the Offerors’ understanding of the requirements to perform the execution tasks outlined in this PWS. The Offeror shall specifically address sections 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.5.5 and 3.9 in their proposal.

Factor 3 – Wargame Analysis: The Offeror shall address their approach to the Wargame Analysis. The Offeror must provide in detail the post-wargame event analysis and assessment approach and methodology that articulates the Offeror’s understanding of the requirements to perform the analysis tasks outlined in this PWS. The offeror shall specifically address sections 3.4.1, 3.4.1.1, 3.7 and 3.10.3.2 in their proposal.

Factor 4 – Management and Staffing Approach: The Offeror shall address their approach to managing and staffing the requirements identified in the PWS. Offerors shall provide resumes for the Lead Scenario Developer/Game Designer and for the Scenario Developer/Game Designer in accordance with PWS section 2.3. Offerors shall also provide one sample resume for each level of Senior Consultant Support in accordance with PWS section 3.8.

Factor 5 - Past Performance: Offerors must provide past performance information that adequately supports their stated capabilities to accomplish the work defined in the solicitation by annotating past performance accomplishments. For up to three (3) contracts performed within the last five (5) years, the Offeror shall provide a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ). The form is an attachment to the solicitation. The Offeror shall send out, and track the completion of, the Past Performance Questionnaires to each of the Offeror’s Governments/Commercial Points of Contact (POCs). Any completed Past Performance Questionnaires must be submitted directly from the Offeror’s Governments/Commercial POCs to the Government. Each of the Offeror’s POCs shall email its completed Past Performance Questionnaire directly to the Contract Specialist at joseph.butkus@usmc.mil . In addition to the Past Performance Questionnaires, a maximum of three (3) summaries of previous work performed may be provided. Any summaries provided shall not exceed one (1) page each. The summaries must be for the same previous work addressed by the Past Performance Questionnaires. Summaries should address the following:

How the past performance will or will not be the same as previously provided while performing the work required in this solicitation;

The relevance of the contract requirements performed to the requirements in this solicitation;

How ratings above satisfactory were obtained; and Previous roles of Key Personnel, teammates, subcontractors, or others, with significant involvement in the Offeror’s program.

Offerors are advised that the Government may use and evaluate independently obtained past performance data from other sources such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) and Government requested PPQs, in addition to the past performance data provided by the Offeror. Moreover, since the Government may not necessarily interview all the sources provided by the Offeror, it is incumbent upon the Offeror to explain the relevance of any past performance data provided. Furthermore, the Government does not assume the duty to search for data to explain or remedy any inconsistencies it finds in the information provided by the Offeror. The burden of providing thorough and complete past performance information remains with the Offeror. The Government will determine whether or not PPQs received after the proposal due date will be considered.

Factor 6 – Small Business:

Small Business (SB) Utilization Strategy - All Offerors (Large and Small Businesses) shall address their strategies for utilizing SB. SB Offerors may include the work they perform themselves. For purposes of this solicitation, the term SB Concern shall also include the subcategories of Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB), Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB), Women-Owned Small Business (WOSB), and HUBZone Small Business (HUBZone). Each subcategory of SB shall be addressed. This strategy is separate from, but shall be consistent with, the SB Subcontracting Plan, if such a Plan is required. Offerors shall provide goals, expressed as percentages of total order value and percentages of total subcontract value for SB Concerns and each subcategory of SB.

B. Price Proposal.

i. Executive Summary/Cover Letter. The Offeror shall either state that the proposal has been prepared completely consistent with the terms and conditions of the solicitation or address any exceptions, deviations, and waivers to the solicitation. The Offeror is advised that if any exceptions, deviations and/or waivers are taken, the proposal may be determined non-compliant and ineligible for award. No information within the letter will be evaluated other than for exceptions, deviations, and waivers to the solicitation. The Offeror shall state its CAGE code and provide email and phone numbers for a primary and alternate company representative to serve as the Government’s point of contact for the proposal. No price information shall be included in the letter. The letter should include the offer validity period and acknowledge the number of amendments issued.

ii. Model Contract. Sections A through J comprise the model contract. The Offeror shall submit a completed, signed original copy of Sections A, B and Section K with all appropriate “fill-ins” completed. In accordance with FAR 52.204-8 ANNUAL REPRESENTATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS (APR 2016), the offeror may certify that their annual representations and certifications have been completed electronically via the SAM website in lieu of completing Section K fill-ins. The submission of these items in accordance with the instructions shall, if accepted by the Government, contractually bind the Government and the Contractor to the terms and conditions of the model contract.

iii. Pricing. The Offeror shall submit pricing for every line item in the model contract with the exception of Travel and CDRLs; failure to do so will result in the proposal being ineligible for award without discussions. All line item unit prices shall be priced to the nearest dollar with no decimals. All line item Total Prices (extended prices) shall be evenly divisible by the quantity stated in Section B of the model contract (i.e. the unit prices shall not contain decimals). For the Labor Hour line items, the Offeror shall address the requirements of FAR 52.216-29. A single, fully-burdened composite labor rate shall be proposed for each Labor Hour line item. Provide the basis for the calculation of the composite Labor Hour rate (including labor categories and fully burdened labor rates). The offeror shall submit a Compensation Plan for Professional Employees in accordance with FAR 52.222-46.

SECTION M EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD.

M.1 Basis for Contract Award.

The Government anticipates award of a single IDIQ contract as a result of this solicitation on the basis of best value with tradeoffs in accordance with FAR 15.101-1. Pursuant to FAR 52.215-1, the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with Offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). Therefore, the Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a cost or price and business standpoint.

M.2 Evaluation Factors.

The non-price evaluation factors and their relative order of importance are listed in descending order of importance as follows:

1. Wargame Planning and Development

2. Wargame Execution

3. Wargame Analysis

4. Management and Staffing Approach

5. Past Performance

6. Small Business

The non-price factors when combined are more important than price.

Factor 1 – Wargame Planning and Development: For this factor, the Government will evaluate the Offerors on the degree to which the proposal demonstrates knowledge, understanding, and capability to perform the planning and development tasks outlined in the PWS, specifically addressing sections 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.4 and 3.2.1.

Factor 2 – Wargame Execution: For this factor, the Government will evaluate the Offerors on the degree to which the proposal demonstrates knowledge, understanding, and capability to perform the wargame execution tasks outlined in the Performance Work Statement (PWS), specifically addressing sections 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.5.5 and 3.9.

Factor 3 – Wargame Analysis: For this factor, the Government will evaluate the Offerors on the degree to which the proposal demonstrates knowledge, understanding, and capability to perform the wargame analysis tasks outlined in the PWS, specifically addressing sections 3.4.1, 3.4.1.1, 3.7 and 3.10.3.2.

Factor 4 – Management and Staffing Approach: For this factor, the Government will evaluate the offeror’s understanding of personnel and management requirements necessary to consistently meet the requirements of the PWS. The Government will evaluate the level of understanding demonstrated by the Offeror’s designation of certain personnel as key personnel. For key personnel, the Government will evaluate the education, experience, and expertise proposed and the degree to which those areas demonstrate an ability to successfully complete the PWS requirements. For Senior Consultant resumes, the Government will evaluate the level of experience and expertise demonstrated for each level.

Factor 5 - Past Performance: Past performance will be evaluated to determine the level of relevancy and confidence on the basis of how well the Offeror performed previous contract requirements. Past performance will evaluate overall contract performance as it relates to cost, schedule, and performance, including the Offeror’s record of meeting contract requirements, adherence to contract schedules, and customer satisfaction.

Factor 6 - Small Business: In evaluating the Small Business Utilization Strategy, the Government will evaluate the extent to which the strategy is less-than or greater-than the following Small Business goals:

Small Business 36.7% Small Disadvantaged Business 5.0% Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business 3.0% Woman-Owned Small Business 5.0% HUBZone Small Business 3.0%

Factor 7 - Price: Price will be evaluated, but not assigned an adjectival rating. The Government will also evaluate the offeror’s Compensation Plan for Professional Employees in accordance with FAR 52.222-46. The Government will establish a “Total Evaluated Price to the Government” for each Offeror by multiplying the Offeror’s proposed unit price for each CLIN as listed in the Schedule Section B by the quantity for each CLIN to calculate an extended price. The sum of the extended prices, to include Government determined “Not to Exceed” prices for travel, will determine the “Total Evaluated Price to the Government”. A proposal with an overall acceptable total evaluated price may not be determined fair and reasonable if the Contracting Officer determines that unbalanced pricing exists. A determination will be made that proposed pricing is fair and reasonable utilizing the analysis techniques in FAR 15.404-1.

M.3 Evaluation Ratings.

M.3.1. Rating for Factors 1 through 4 and 6.

For factors 1 through 4 and 6, the Government will assign a combined technical/risk rating in accordance with the table shown below. The following definitions are applicable:

* 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.

* Weakness is defined as a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

* Significant weakness in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful performance.

* Deficiency is defined as 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.

* Risk is the potential for unsuccessful contract performance. The consideration of risk assesses the degree to which an Offeror’s proposed approach to achieving the technical factor or subfactor may involve risk of disruption of schedule, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

Combined Technical/Risk Rating

M.3.2. Rating for Factor 5, Past Performance.

For Past Performance, the Government will assign Offerors a relevancy rating for each past performance effort and an overall confidence rating in accordance with the tables below. Relevancy is a measure of the extent of similarity between the service/support effort, scope, complexity, magnitude, contract type, and subcontract/teaming or other comparable attributes of past performance examples and the solicitation requirements; and a measure of the likelihood that the past performance is an indicator of future performance.

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Performance Confidence Assessment is an evaluation of the likelihood (or the Government’s confidence) that the Offeror will successfully perform the solicitation’s requirements; the evaluation is based upon past performance information. To determine the performance confidence assessment rating, evaluators will weigh the quality of the Offeror’s performance on the prior efforts in proportion to the relevance of each effort to arrive at an overall confidence rating. The greater the prior effort’s relevance, the more the quality of the performance on that effort will affect the overall rating. Those efforts deemed not relevant will not affect the overall confidence rating one way or the other, given that the performance on that effort is deemed not relevant.

Performance Confidence Assessments

Rating

Definition

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.

In the event that insufficient past performance data exists for an Offeror, the overall rating for this factor will be “Neutral Confidence”. This rating will not affect the Offeror’s overall rating in either an adverse or beneficial manner. However for purposes of the best value tradeoff determination a “substantial confidence” or satisfactory confidence “is worth more than a “neutral confidence” past performance rating.