N00019-19-R-0017_SCRM_attch2_Sections LM_3Dec18.docx

Request For Proposal (RFP) F-35 Joint Program Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) Instructions to Offerors/Basis of Award and Evaluation Criteria

1. INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

A. This is a Women Owned Small Business (WOSB) Set Aside conducted in accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 19.1505 and FAR Part 13, Simplified Acquisition Procedures.

B. The proposal submitted in response to this RFP must be in compliance with the terms and conditions stated in the RFP and attachments, and the Statement of Work (SOW). All claimed capabilities to meet the requirements shall be realistic and are subject to verification by the Government. The Government advises the Offeror that taking exception or deviating from any term or condition of the RFP may result in the assessment of a deficiency to the proposal.

C. The Contracting Officer (CO) will select the best submission which conforms to the RFP requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by the submission instructions), and is judged, based on the evaluation factors, to represent the best value to the Government. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced Offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the CO reasonably determines that the technical and/or overall business approach of the higher priced Offeror outweighs the price difference.

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

E. Offerors submitting a proposal in response to this RFP shall submit a technical volume, and price proposal. Text shall be single-spaced, on an 8 ½ x 11 sheet with a minimum one-inch margin all around. Font shall be no less than Times New Roman 10 pt. Pages shall be numbered consecutively within each volume. The page limits prescribed are maximum page limits for each Volume and Sub-factor. When both sides of a sheet display printed material, it shall be counted as two (2) pages. Cover pages, tables of contents, cross-reference matrix, tabs, and glossaries shall not be counted against prescribed page limits. Pages submitted in excess of these limits will not be read or considered in the Government’s evaluation of the proposal. All proposal information shall be submitted in either MS Word or PDF format except for Pricing information (Volume II). Pricing information shall be submitted in MS Excel format. Each volume shall be submitted as a separately-labeled electronic file.

F. Offerors must ensure that pricing information is only included in Volume II. Do NOT include any pricing information in Volume I. Pricing information included in the Technical Volume will not be evaluated. All unit and extended prices provided shall be rounded to the nearest dollar. Extended prices must be divisible by the number of units proposed.

G. Each Offeror shall complete an Oral Presentation of their proposal to the F-35 JPO Representatives NLT 3 Business Days after the Proposal submission deadline. Oral Presentations will be limited to a 60 minute presentation, followed by a 15 minute Question and Answer Session. Demonstrations during this time of the Offeror’s solution/tool/application is permitted and expected. The Offeror will need to inform the Government of any Information Technology (Projector, cable connection, etc.) required for their Oral Presentation. Internet Access will NOT be provided.

H. Each Offeror shall submit proposals electronically via email in a format readable by Microsoft (MS) Word 2010, Adobe Acrobat X Pro, MS Excel 2010, and MS-Power Point 2010. All submissions shall reference the complete RFP number in the subject line. Offerors shall submit the proposal to the Contracting Office and Contract Specialist. Updates are permitted up until the proposal deadline. The most recent submission is what will be evaluated.

I. Proposals shall be submitted in accordance with the table below:

I

Table 1 – Proposal Breakout

(1) Volume I:

Cover Letter: The Cover Letter shall include Offerors’ contract number, small business status/categories, company primary and alternate points of contact with email/phone and who is authorized to contractually obligate the company, CAGE Code, DUNS number, a statement that the company understands the requirements specified and will meet the performance standards and requirements therein, a statement that the company does or does not take exception to any of the requirements of this order, acknowledges use of non-Government advisors (if applicable) and specific information if proposing a teaming arrangement.

Technical Approach: The Technical Proposal should be specific and complete. Legibility, clarity, and coherence are very important.

(2) Volume II: The Offeror shall submit pricing information to support the completeness and reasonableness of their proposed prices for all CLINs. The pricing information submitted should fully support the SOW requirements for each major functional element specified in the SOW. A breakdown should be provided which shows the skill mix, labor categories, labor rates and position descriptions. Information shall be segregated by the performance periods, individual performance locations, and the total price for each CLIN as specified in the solicitation. Information shall also show the consolidated total price for performance. Offerors shall also provide a completed copy of Attachment 3, CLIN Structure Pricing Sheet, populated with the CLIN unit prices and CLIN total prices.

II. Questions regarding this RFP shall be in writing and directed via e-mail to the Contract Specialists, Chloe Williams (chloe.williams@jsf.mil), Jacee Stumpf (Jacee.stumpf@jsf.mil), and the Contracting Officer, Andrew Smith (Andrew.smith@jsf.mil). All correspondence shall reference the RFP number on the top of the request. The cut-off date for questions is not later than 12:00 PM Eastern Time on 07 December 2018. If received, all questions will be answered electronically to all interested Offerors, so that all Offerors will see both the question and the answer. However, the identity of the person/company asking the question will not be disclosed.

2. EVALUATION CRITERIA

A. Technical Evaluation

(1) Sub-factor 1.1: Technical Maturity

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror:

a. Proposes a solution that requires little to no development or new design to implement a solution for the F-35 JPO.

b. Provides a demonstration of their proposed solution; highlighting how the F-35 can be integrated into their existing solution.

c. Proposes an approach that allows ease of access of the solution on a 24/7 basis.

(2) Sub-factor 1.2: Continuous Monitoring The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror:

a. Proposes a realistic approach to keeping the data in the solution current and near real-time.

b. Proposes an approach that minimizes the interaction with the Government after initial set-up to keep the data up-to date.

c. Proposes a methodology to provide notifications/alerts to the F-35 JPO within 5 calendar days that data within the solution has changed.

(3) Sub-factor 1.3 Data Collection The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror:

a. Proposes an approach that uses only open source information to gather data to map the supply chain and perform a risk assessment and analysis.

b. Proposes a data gathering approach that is non-attributable to the Government or the Offeror.

(4) Sub-factor 1.4 Data Display

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror:

a. Provides a demonstration of how the solution will be displayed to the F-35 JPO.

b. Proposes a solution which the data displayed is easily interpreted and does not require interaction with the offeror.

c. Proposes a solution that can provide a high level Executive-type information display, with an ability to drill down into more details as necessary.

d. Proposes an effective visualization of the supply chain map.

B. Price Evaluation

(1) Each Offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated to determine whether it is complete, reasonable, and whether it contains balanced unit pricing. In its evaluation, the Government will perform a price reasonableness analysis to assess if the Offeror’s proposed price is fair and reasonable. The total evaluated price will be the sum of the CLINs.

(2) Unbalanced Pricing: The Offeror shall explain any appearance of unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques.

3. BASIS FOR AWARD

(1) The Government expects to select one Offeror whose proposal offers the “best value” to the Government, using the trade-off method. “Best value” means the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the Government’s estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit(s) in response to the requirement. The Offeror is advised that the lowest priced proposal meeting the solicitation requirements may not be selected for an award if award to a higher priced Offeror is determined to be more beneficial to the Government. However, the perceived benefits of the higher priced proposal must merit the additional price.

(2) Interchanges are fluid interaction(s) between the Contracting Officer (CO) and the Offerors that may address any aspect of the proposal and will be documented in real time. The Government intends to make award based on the initial proposal submissions without conducting interchanges. Therefore, each offer should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to hold interchanges using Interchange Notices (INs) if, during the evaluation, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government. Offeror responses to INs will be considered in making the order selection decision. The Government is not required to conduct interchanges with any or all Offerors responding to this RFP.

(3) Evaluation Factors: Factor 1, Technical is the most important factor. Technical is significantly more important than Price. Price is not the most important evaluation factor, but its degree of importance will increase commensurably with the degree of equality among different offerors’ Technical proposals. Technical subfactor 1 (Technical Maturity) is significantly more important than the other technical subfactors. Technical subfactor 2 (Continuous Monitoring) is more important that technical subfactors 3 (Data Gathering) and 4 (Data Display). Technical subfactors 3 and 4 are of equal importance.

a. Factor 1 - Technical:

i. Offerors should address their technical solution for meeting or exceeding the Government’s minimum performance or capability requirements of each technical sub-factor. All the requirements specified in the solicitation are mandatory. By your proposal submission, you are representing that your firm will perform all the requirements specified in the solicitation. Do not merely reiterate the objectives or reformulate the requirements specified in the solicitation.

ii. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal to determine the Offeror’s understanding, approach to, and ability to meet the solicitation requirements. The Government will assess the Offeror’s Technical proposal with respect to its compliance with the solicitation requirements and the risk associated with the Offeror's approach. The evaluation of Offerors’ Technical proposals will also include an assessment of the following:

1. Technical Maturity. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s understanding of the work based on the proposed solution and software. The Government will evaluate the responses for clarity, completeness, and realism and the extent to which the proposed approach details a solution that will allow ease of access to the data output during the contract period of performance.

2. Continuous Monitoring. Offerors will be evaluated on the clarity and thoroughness of the approach to continuously monitor suppliers as required by the SOW attached to this solicitation. The Government will evaluate the degree to which the proposed solution demonstrates the Offeror’s ability to meet the requirements of the SOW.

3. Data Gathering. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s response to assess the degree of which the proposed approach utilizes non-attribution and open source information to provide data required by the SOW attached to this solicitation.

4. Data Display. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s demonstration during the Oral Presentation to determine the level of maturity within the existing design.

iii. For the Technical factor and each of the subfactors, a combined Technical/Risk rating will be assigned. This method reflects whether the proposal meets or does not meet the minimum requirements along with an assessment of the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies of the proposal to determine the combined Technical/Risk rating. The benefit to the Government associated with assessed strengths along with technical risk will be considered in determining whether the Offeror’s proposal rises to a level of being good or outstanding. Assessment of technical risk considers potential for disruption of schedule, increase in costs, degradation of performance, the need to increase Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. Offerors are advised that during the evaluation process, a technical subfactor with an “Unacceptable” Technical/Risk Rating will result in an overall Technical factor rating as “Unacceptable,” which may result in the entire proposal being eliminated from the competition.

iv. Evaluation Rating and Risk Assessment Definitions. The definitions below will be used by the Government when assessing solicitation compliance and the expected results of the Offeror’s proposed approach. The appropriate adjectival rating will be assigned to each factor and subfactor as required. The Government will utilize a combined technical/risk rating for this effort. The combined technical/risk ratings are provided in the table below:

Table 2: Technical Ratings

v. Other Definitions

1. 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.

2. “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.

3. “Weakness” is a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

4. “Significant weakness” in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

5. “Risk” as it pertains to source selection, 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 invoke risk of disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

6. Low Risk: Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

7. Moderate Risk: Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption pf schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

8. High Risk: Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

vi. If the Offeror attempts to identify proposal “strengths,” the Government reserves the right to accept or not accept the Offeror’s assessment of strengths. Offerors are hereby notified that any strength identified by the Government may be incorporated into the resulting contract. If the Offeror does not agree to such incorporation, then the Government may choose not to consider those strengths when making the best value determination. The awarded contract may reflect any beneficial aspects of the awardee’s proposal and any above threshold (minimum) attributes, performance levels, or capabilities for which evaluation credit was given in the source selection process to the maximum extent possible.

b. Factor 2 – Price

i. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Price Volume for its proposed total price and price reasonableness.

ii. Price Reasonableness: Normally, competition establishes price reasonableness. It is expected that this contract award decision will include a determination that there is adequate price competition and that the proposed prices are reasonable. If after receipt of a proposal, the Procuring Contracting Officer determines that adequate price competition does not exist and a determination is made that none of the exceptions in FAR 15.403-1(b) apply, the offeror may be requested to provide certified cost and pricing data in accordance with FAR 15.403-4.

iii. Unbalanced Pricing: As required by FAR 15.404-1(g)(2), the Government may determine that a proposal is unacceptable if the prices proposed are materially unbalanced between line items or subline items. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. A proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. This is not a price realism analysis.

iv. No Realism Analysis: The RFP does not request price support information to enable the Government to conduct a price realism analysis, and the Government is not required to conduct a price realism analysis as part of its evaluation of offerors. The Government may decide, but is not required to decide, to obtain some kinds of price support information from an offeror.

v. If the government needs the price support information to determine whether the offeror’s proposal is acceptable for award, the exchange of information is not “discussions” as that term is used at FAR Subpart 15.3.

vi. If the Offeror is the apparent successful offeror, that offeror will not be permitted to submit a revised proposal or increase its proposed price as part of its price support information.