RFP Attachment 2 - Sections L and M_7.27.21.pdf

DRAFT HR001121R0003 Sections L & M

DARPA SID Program Security Services

July 27, 2021

Section L: Proposal Preparation and Submission

L.0 Solicitation Point of Contact

Mary Beth Colavito

Contracting Officer

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency

Contracts Management Office (DARPA/CMO)

675 N. Randolph St.

Arlington, VA 22203-2114

Email: ProgramSecurityRequirement@darpa.mil

L.1 Overview

Solicitation HR001121R0003 is a Request for Proposal (RFP) issued by the Defense Advanced

Research Projects Agency (DARPA) under North American Industry Classification System

(NAICS) Code 541690 “Other Scientific and Technical Consulting Services”. DARPA Contracts

Management Office (CMO) intends to award a standalone Cost Plus Fixed Fee / COST hybrid contract.

L.2 Potential Offerors’ Document Request Due Date

Potential offerors may request copies of the following documents by 10:00 AM Eastern on

Wednesday, August 4, 2021, via email (Subject Line: Program Security Documents Request –

[Offeror Name]) from the Contracting Officer at ProgramSecurityRequirement@darpa.mil:

a) DARPA Instruction 53 “DARPA Security, Counterintelligence, and Emergency

Management Programs”

b) DARPA Security Guide

c) Mission Services Office and Security & Intelligence Directorate Organizational Chart

Note: Documents shall be used for proposal preparation purposes only and not disseminated.

L.3 Questions Due Date

Questions/clarifications to this solicitation are due by 10:00 AM Eastern on Monday, August 16, 2021. The DARPA CMO Contracting Officer is the sole point of contact for all questions under this solicitation. Offerors shall submit all questions using the Questions Matrix in Attachment 8 via email (Subject Line: Program Security Questions – [Offeror Name]) to the Contracting

Officer at ProgramSecurityRequirement@darpa.mil. Questions will be answered in the form of an amendment to this solicitation and posted electronically on SAM.gov.

mailto:ProgramSecurityRequirement@darpa.mil

L.4 Proposal Submission Requirements

Offerors are instructed to read the entire solicitation document, including all attachments, prior to submitting questions and/or preparing your proposal. Omission of any information from the proposal submission requirements may result in rejection of the proposal.

File names shall be labeled with the volume number and Offeror name. It is the sole responsibility of the Offeror to ensure that the electronic files submitted are virus free and can be opened and read by the Government. Submissions shall not be locked, encrypted, or otherwise contain barriers to opening. All proposal documents shall be in Adobe (.pdf) or compatible format except portions of the price submission which shall be in MS Excel 2016 (.xlsx) or compatible format. Attachment file sizes may not be larger than 40MB.

Offerors must adhere to Volume numbers, format and/or templates, and page limitations. If page limitations are exceeded, where page limits are expressed, the excess pages will not be evaluated.

Text shall be at least single-spaced, on 8 1/2 x 11 inch paper, with a minimum one-inch margin all around. Pages shall be numbered consecutively. Any foldout pages beyond 8 ½ x 11 dimensions shall be counted as two (2) pages.

Print shall be of a minimum 10-point font size or a maximum 10 characters per inch (10-pitch, Times New Roman) spacing including graphic presentations and tables. Bolding, underlining, and italics may be used to identify topic demarcations or points of emphasis.

Table of contents and/or compliance matrices are permitted and will not count toward the page limit.

Classified submissions for Volumes I and III will not be accepted. Classified submissions for

Volume II (Past Performance section ONLY) may be submitted after first notifying the

Contracting Officer of the intent to submit classified information, then coordinating with the

Director, DARPA SAPCO, for submission instructions. Prior approval from the classifying organization must be provided prior to submission.

L.5 Offer Acceptance Period

The offer acceptance period is a minimum of 180 calendar days from the proposal due date and should be appropriately represented in Block 12 of the signed Standard Form (SF) 33, Solicitation, Offer and Award. The Offeror agrees to hold its offered prices firm for the services solicited herein and to accept any resulting contract subject to the terms and conditions stated herein. If there is a discrepancy between the offer acceptance period requirement in this solicitation and the SF 33, the date entered on the SF 33 will take precedence. Offers with an acceptance period less than 180 calendar days will not be accepted.

L.6 Proposals Due Date

Proposals are due by 10:00 AM Eastern on Wednesday, September 1, 2021, via email (Subject

Line: Program Security Proposal – [Offeror Name]) at ProgramSecurityRequirement@darpa.mil.

L.7 Volume I: (Administrative Information)(No Page Limit)

This section shall include all solicitation documents as outlined below and in this order. If an

Offeror fails to provide or adequately comply with any of the following requirements, they will be considered non-responsive, and the rest of their proposal will not be evaluated.

L.7.0 Prime contractor and subcontractor(s) Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS)

Number(s) and Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) Code(s)

L.7.1 Point of Contact

Identification of Offeror’s primary and alternative contracting and technical points of contact to include name, title, email address, and phone number.

L.7.2 Prime contractor mailing address

L.7.3 Business size status (under NAICS Code 541690)

L.7.4 Statement of Compliance

The Offeror shall include a statement indicating complete compliance with this solicitation, or detailed analysis of any objections, exceptions, contingencies, or additions. Any objections, exceptions, contingencies, or additions shall also cross-reference the particular paragraph(s) in this solicitation to which it applies.

L.7.5 Proprietary Information

The Offeror shall include a statement indicating whether the Offeror intends to make use of any proprietary information.

L.7.6 Format and Content

The Offeror shall describe any deviations in their proposal from the specified format of this solicitation. If the content of the Offeror's proposal differs significantly from these guidelines, state the differences, and explain the reason for the differences.

L.7.7 Joint Venture/Teaming Arrangements

The Offeror shall provide, if applicable, a summary describing the Joint Venture/Teaming

Arrangement established for this solicitation and a document establishing the legally binding nature among the joint venture/teaming parties. The Offeror shall indicate on the summary if any of the teaming arrangements are exclusive.

L.7.8 Security

Within this Volume submission, the Offeror shall provide:

a) A copy of its documentation from the National Industrial Security System (NISS) Facility

Clearance Branch that grants its facility and security clearance level at the Top Secret level.

b) A copy of its documentation proving ownership, lease, lease agreement contingent upon award of contract, or otherwise control of (e.g., via subcontract) office/storage space in the National Capital Region that can be dedicated to storage of classified network backup data and clearly shows it meets the requirements of PWS Section 1.4.

c) A statement certifying the Offeror’s ability to provide and maintain contractor personnel up to and including a Top Secret / Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) minimum with Special Program Access eligibility

Note: Facility clearance must be current at time of proposal submission, and the Government will not sponsor facility clearances in anticipation of this award.

L.7.9 Organizational Conflict of Interest

In accordance with FAR 9.507-1(a), the Offeror shall take particular note of Attachment 1A

Section 3(b)(1). The Offeror shall acknowledge that it will accept that Organizational Conflict of Interest requirement and restriction in the resultant contract.

The Offeror shall disclose complete information of any work performed by its company that is in any way associated with the contemplated acquisition or which could result in a potential organizational conflict of interest. The disclosure shall include the prime contract number and a description of the action the Offeror has taken or proposes to take to avoid, neutralize, or mitigate such a conflict. If in the sole opinion of the Government after full consideration of the circumstances, a proposal fails to fully disclose potential conflicts of interest and/or any identified conflict situation cannot be effectively mitigated, the proposal will be rejected without technical evaluation and withdrawn from further consideration for award.

If a prospective Offeror believes that any conflict of interest exists or may exist (whether organizational or otherwise) or has questions on what constitutes a conflict of interest, the

Offeror should promptly raise the issue with DARPA by sending his/her contact information and a summary of the potential conflict to the Contracting Officer before time and effort are expended in preparing a proposal and mitigation plan.

The Offeror shall acknowledge requirement for Non-Disclosure Agreement in format prescribed by Attachment 4 by including a copy within this Volume submission for the authorized representative listed in Section L.7.10. This Non-Disclosure Agreement will be included in the resultant award and will be mandatory for all personnel working under the contract.

L.7.10 Standard Form 33

The Offeror shall complete blocks 12 through 18 of the Standard Form 33. If any amendments to this solicitation are issued, the Offeror shall acknowledge each amendment number and date in block 14 of the SF 33. The Offeror’s legal name and address in block 15A must match the information for the Offeror in System for Award Management (SAM) (http://www.sam.gov), including the corresponding CAGE Code number and DUNS number. The name, title, and signature identified in blocks 16 and 17 must be an authorized representative with authority to commit the Offeror to contractual obligations.

L.7.11 Accounting System

The Offeror shall provide proof of a Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA)-approved accounting system or shall fill out the Accounting System Checklist showing the Offeror has an acceptable accounting system in place at Attachment 5 and include it within this Volume submission. Offerors should note that if the Contracting Officer or DCMA conducts a Preaward

Survey and considers the Offeror to not be responsible, the Offeror will not be considered for award, and the rest of their proposal will not be evaluated.

L.7.12 Subcontracting Plan

Small businesses as defined in FAR 52.219-1 as a Small Business Concern are not required to submit a Subcontracting Plan. For other than small businesses, the Offeror shall provide a

Subcontracting Plan. An Individual Subcontracting Plan is preferred, but an Offeror may submit any type of Subcontracting Plan as long as it conforms with FAR 19.704, Subcontracting Plan

Requirements, and FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, (Deviation 2016-

O0009), including a Department of Defense Comprehensive Subcontracting Plan as long as it is approved by the Defense Contract Management Agency. Subcontracting plans shall reflect

Offeror’s commitment, in terms of value of the total acquisition, to small businesses as proposed in response to Factor 2: Management Approach- Small Business Participation. Subcontracting plans that do not reflect at least the same small business participation (e.g., percentage and type of small business concern) as proposed in response to Factor 2 will be considered non-compliant with this solicitation.

L.7.13 Section K Certifications

Any Section K information required by this solicitation shall be included in this Volume.

L.7.14 Terms and Conditions

The Offeror is required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors. By submission of its proposal, the Offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements.

L.8 Volume II: Non-Cost Evaluation Factors

L.8.1 Evaluation Factor 1: Technical Approach (20 page limit)

The Offeror shall address their technical approach to the functions for which the position is responsible for the following PWS sections as exemplars for the overall contract:

a) Contract Program Manager (PWS Section 5.1)

b) Counterintelligence (CI) Analyst / Senior CI Analyst (PWS Section 5.3)

c) Information & Industrial Security Specialist & Senior Specialist (PWS Section 5.8)

d) Science & Technology Protection Analyst (PWS Section 5.15)

e) Countering Foreign Influence Program (CFIP) Analyst (PWS Section 5.16)

f) Program Security Representative (PSR) / Senior PSR (PWS Section 5.18)

L.8.2 Evaluation Factor 2: Management Approach (20 page limit)

The Offeror shall address their management approach to include the following:

a) Complete staffing mix in organizational chart format (to include reporting structure). If the number of FTEs proposed deviates from the anticipated amounts included in the

Current Staffing Mix, the Offeror shall explain the associated efficiencies, additional benefits, and/or effectiveness of the deviation(s).

b) Explanation of the Offeror’s recruitment/retention strategies to limit turnover, vacancies, and unqualified personnel in recognition of PWS Section 2.5. Any FAR 52.222-46 total compensation plan information requested in Section L.9.1.c.3 that does NOT contain specific cost information should align with and can also be included in this factor.

c) Explanation of the Offeror’s strategies to demonstrate flexibility and ability to quickly and appropriately adapt to changing requirements and surge efforts over course of the contract.

d) Transition Phase-In Plan in accordance with PWS Section 7.1.

e) Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) for the Government’s consideration in development of the Government’s QASP to include proposed acceptable quality levels and mapping to the PWS in accordance with FAR 37.604.

L.8.3 Evaluation Factor 3: Key Personnel – 2 pages per resume (22 page limit)

The Offeror shall provide resumes for the Key Personnel associated with the following PWS sections (one resume per labor category listed below):

a) Contract Program Manager (PWS Section 5.1)

b) Counterintelligence (CI) Senior Analyst (PWS Section 5.3)

c) Database/Web System Administrator (PWS Section 5.5)

d) Information & Industrial Security Senior Specialist (PWS Section 5.8)

e) Security Education, Training, and Awareness Specialist (PWS Section 5.13)

f) Science & Technology Protection Analyst (PWS Section 5.15)

g) Countering Foreign Influence Program (CFIP) Analyst (PWS Section 5.16)

h) Program Security Representative (PSR) (PWS Section 5.18)

i) Senior PSR (PWS Section 5.18)

j) Program Security Representative – Executive Support (PWS Section 5.21)

k) Technical Security Support Specialist (PWS Section 5.22)

Resumes shall include the following information (in order):

1. Full name

2. Proposed position

3. Citizenship

4. Security clearance

5. Education (degrees, year, specialization, certifications, additional training)

6. Dates, job title, employer name, description, and relevance to PWS requirements for current and past relevant experience

7. Employment status (i.e. whether the proposed individual is currently employed by the prime or subcontractor, is subject to a contingency offer of employment, or other status)

L.8.4 Evaluation Factor 4: Past Performance (6 page limit)

The Offeror shall provide Past Performance information as follows: a) Table of Contents, b) Past

Performance Information Submissions, c) CPARS and Questionnaire Submissions, and d)

Organization Structure Change History, if applicable.

a) Table of Contents (No page limit)

The table of contents should include page numbers for each CPARS evaluation by contract and applicable Period of Performance.

b) Past Performance Information Submissions (6 page limit)

Offerors may provide up to three (3) relevant (i.e. similar in size, scope, and complexity to this requirement) past performance information submissions, of which no more than one (1) of the submissions may be for work performed by a subcontractor. Any submissions for the prime must be for their work either as a prime contractor or first tier subcontractor. Any submissions for a subcontractor must be for their work as a prime contractor.

All submissions must be recent as defined by services performed since January 1, 2016.

DARPA reserves the right to determine which contracts submitted by the Offeror are relevant to the requirements and to utilize only those references.

Offerors shall provide a two-page summary for each Past Performance Information Submission.

The summary shall include the following (in order):

i. Identify the full contract number (and task/call order number if applicable – each task/call order is considered a submission).

ii. Identify the Period of Performance to include the months, days, and years

(MM/DD/YYYY; e.g., 02/15/2017 – 02/14/22).

iii. Identify the current obligation dollar amount, total contract value, and/or potential ceiling, as applicable.

iv. Identify whether the submission was performed by the Offeror as the prime, by the Offeror as a first tier subcontractor, or by a proposed subcontractor as the prime.

v. Identify the Government customer office name for the submission and provide the name, title/role, phone number, and email address of a Government customer point of contact

(POC) that is knowledgeable of the Offeror’s performance on the submission.

vi. Describe the nature of the submission and the specified tasks performed by the Offeror and any subcontractors, if applicable.

vii. Describe the role, if any, that the proposed key personnel played in the performance of the contract. If the individual was assigned to the contract on a less than full-time basis, describe the degree of their involvement.

viii. Describe any problems encountered on the identified contract and any corrective action taken, to include response to any adverse past performance information available to the

Government.

ix. Demonstrate how the Offeror’s or proposed subcontractor(s)’ performance is similar in size, scope, and complexity to the PWS requirements. Similarities including PWS Sections listed in Evaluation Factor 1: Technical Approach will be considered more relevant.

If the Offeror does not have any past performance information, the Offeror must state in this section that they possess no relevant past performance. Offerors with no relevant past performance will receive a past performance rating of “Neutral Confidence”.

c) CPARS or Questionnaires (No page limit)

For each Past Performance Information Submission, Offerors shall submit ALL Contractor

Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) evaluations that were completed for the relevant time period (since January 1, 2016).

If CPARS evaluations are not available, Offerors (or subcontractors) shall request that their

Government customer submit past performance information on the Past Performance

Questionnaire found at Attachment 6. The POCs identified on the questionnaire must be able to provide information on the quality of the Offeror or subcontractor’s performance. The Offeror’s customers must send past performance information to ProgramSecurityRequirement@darpa.mil by the proposal due date. The Offeror shall include in this section proof of correspondence with

Government customer requesting past performance information (e.g. copy of date-stamped email).

Determination of Responsibility: Even though the assessment of past performance information as a specific evaluation factor is separate and distinct from the determination of responsibility required by FAR 9.1, Responsible Prospective Contractors, past performance information obtained herein may be used to support the determination of responsibility for the successful

Offeror.

Subcontractors, in order to protect proprietary information, may send CPARS evaluations or responses to adverse past performance directly to the Government, but it shall be received by the proposal due date.

In the conduct of its past performance evaluation of Offerors, DARPA may use a variety of sources in addition to information provided by the Offeror. DARPA may use past performance information obtained from sources other than those identified by the Offeror. These sources may include, but are not limited to, CPARS, technical reports, evaluators’ personal knowledge, commercial or any available published information, and information derived from present or past

Government or commercial customers of the Offeror. Those Offerors who have no relevant past performance history will not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably on past performance.

d) Organizational Structure Change History (No page limit)

Many Offerors have acquired, been acquired by, or otherwise merged with other companies, and/or reorganized its divisions, business groups, subsidiary companies, etc. In many cases, these changes have taken place during the time of performance of relevant past efforts or between conclusion of recent past efforts and this source selection. As a result, it is sometimes difficult to determine what past performance is relevant to this procurement. To facilitate this relevancy determination, include in this proposal Volume (if applicable), a “roadmap” describing all such changes in the company since January 1, 2016. As part of this explanation, show how these changes impact the relevance of any past performance. Since the Government intends to consider past performance information provided by other sources, as well as that provided by the Offeror, the Offeror’s “roadmap” should be specifically applicable to the past performance information submissions identified but general enough to apply to efforts on which the Government receives information from other sources. This information is required for the Offeror and any teaming partner(s) being used for past performance information submissions. The Government reserves the right to exclude sources due to conflicts of interest.

L.8.5 Evaluation Factor 5: Small Business Participation (3 page limit)

The Offeror, with the exception of small businesses, shall submit a Small Business Participation

Plan separate from the subcontracting plan. The Small Business Participation Plan shall:

a) Identify specific small businesses, their role, and the type of commitment between the prime and small business.

b) Describe the expertise and appropriateness of work small businesses are to perform.

c) List extent of participation of small business by small business type (e.g., service-disabled veteran-owned, HUBZone, small disadvantaged, and women-owned small businesses) in terms of a percentage of the total value of the acquisition.

L.9 Volume III: Cost (No page limit)

L.9.1 Evaluation Factor 6: Cost (No page limit)

a) Government-Provided Spreadsheet (Attachment 7):

1. Offerors shall submit a proposal for the base period, four (4) option periods, and a six-month extension period per Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 52.217-8. The six-month extension shall be included in the total overall cost for evaluation purposes only and be equal to half of the Option Period Four (4) cost.

2. Offerors shall include the Government-provided Not-to-Exceed (NTE) amounts for each

ODC/Travel Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) and include these NTE costs in the total overall cost.

3. Proposals shall be submitted using the Government-provided spreadsheet with working formulas. The Offeror shall not edit the formulas contained within the spreadsheet.

b) Offeror Format Spreadsheet:

1. The Offeror shall provide all labor categories, hours, rates, and full cost element buildup in their own format with working formulas (no hard-entered numbers beyond direct labor rates and indirect rates to be applied to proper bases).

2. Various individual cost elements to be included are: direct labor rates, fringe, overhead, General and Administrative (G&A), subcontractor Material Handling / pass-through costs

(if proposal includes subcontracts(s)), and escalation.

c) Cost Narrative:

1. The cost proposal shall be based on the Offeror’s understanding of the PWS and any other requirements in the RFP. Supporting cost proposal documentation shall also be included in narrative form to provide a basis for the cost including enough information/explanation for the Contracting Officer to evaluate proposed price as fair and reasonable and cost as realistic (discussing each individual cost element including fixed fee). Cost realism analysis documentation shall be provided to support that the proposed cost elements are realistic for the work to be performed; reflect a clear understanding of the requirements; and are consistent with the unique methods of performance described in the Offeror’s proposal. If an Offeror fails to provide adequate information to support a cost realism analysis, their proposal may be found unrealistic and unawardable.

2. In accordance with FAR 15.403-1(b) and 15.403-3(a), information other than cost or pricing data may be required to support a determination of a fair and reasonable proposed cost and/or cost realism. If, after receipt of proposals, the Contracting Officer determines that there is insufficient information available to determine whether a proposed cost is fair and reasonable and none of the exceptions in FAR 15.403-1 apply, Offerors shall be required to submit cost or pricing data. Information shall be provided in accordance with

FAR 15.403 through 15.405.

3. Offerors shall provide a total compensation plan per FAR 52.222-46 setting forth salaries and fringe benefits proposed for the professional employees who will work under the contract. Supporting information shall include data such as recognized national and regional compensation surveys and studies of professional, public and private organizations, used in establishing the total compensation structure. The compensation levels proposed should reflect a clear understanding of work to be performed and should indicate the capability of the proposed compensation structure to obtain and keep suitably qualified personnel to meet mission objectives. The salary rates or ranges must take into account differences in skills, the complexity of various disciplines, and professional job difficulty.

The plan shall include details regarding wages/salaries, tangible fringe benefits, and other forms of compensation/motivation, including employer/employee cost sharing arrangements or benefits that will be used to recruit and retain high-quality employees.

The plan shall address sick leave, health insurance, employee saving plans, vacation, education, and/or other competitive fringe benefits. The Offeror shall submit applicable unburdened direct annual salaries that will actually be paid to the employees as compensation. The Offeror shall provide the basis for these benefits and provide evidence that they will be able to attract and retain the requisite work force to perform this effort.

Note: Subcontractors may submit supporting calculations and narratives of their costs directly to

ProgramSecurityRequirement@darpa.mil by the proposal due date if the proposed subcontractor does not wish to send proprietary information to the Offeror. Subcontract proposals must contain the same level of detail as the Offeror’s proposal.

L.10 Evaluation of Proposals

All information provided in proposals is subject to evaluation. The Government will evaluate proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria set forth in Section M of this solicitation.

This solicitation includes all evaluation criteria that the Government will use to evaluate

Offerors’ proposals. In evaluating an Offeror’s proposal under any of the evaluation criteria, the

Government may use the solicitation and all of its attachments, including the PWS, to evaluate the Offeror’s understanding, approach, and demonstrated performance to meet the Government's requirements. In evaluating an Offeror’s proposal, Government evaluators may also rely on their professional experience, including their experience with the Offeror.

The Government may summarily reject any proposal not substantially in compliance with the terms and conditions of the solicitation. The Government may reject any or all proposals if such action is in the public interest and waive informalities and minor irregularities in proposals received.

All proposal information is subject to verification by the Government. Falsification of any proposal submission, documents, or statements may subject the Offeror to civil or criminal prosecution under Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code (making false statements).

L.11 Use of Non-Government Advisors

Offerors are advised that technical and cost data submitted to the Government in response to this solicitation may be released to non-Government advisors that have signed non-disclosure agreements for review and analysis. Any objection to disclosure shall be provided in writing to the Contracting Officer within ten (10) calendar days of solicitation issuance and shall include a detailed statement of the basis for the objection. The detailed statement shall identify the specific portions of the proposal the Offeror objects to disclosure to non-Government advisors.

L.12 Incurring Costs

DARPA shall not be obligated to pay any cost incurred by the Offeror in the preparation and submission of a proposal in response to this solicitation. The Offeror is advised that the

Contracting Officer is the only person who can legally obligate DARPA for the expenditure of public funds in connection with this procurement.

Section M: Evaluation Factors and Basis of Award

M.1 Basis of Contract Award

The Government will fairly consider all proposals received in response and conforming to this solicitation. The Government intends to award one (1) standalone contract to the Offeror determined to be responsible and the best value to the Government. The best value determination will be made using a trade-off analysis of all evaluation factors in accordance with methodology specified in this solicitation. The Government may reject all proposals received in response to a solicitation if doing so is in the best interest of the Government.

M.2 Discussions

The Government reserves the right to make an award without communications with Offerors.

The Government reserves the right to communicate with Offerors after receipt of proposals to clarify or resolve any minor clerical discrepancies (as deemed by the Contracting Officer).

Clarifications and/or resolution of minor discrepancies are not considered alterations to proposals. The Government also reserves the right to award without discussions; therefore, the

Offeror's initial proposal should contain the Offeror's best terms from a cost and technical standpoint.

If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the

Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals pursuant to FAR 15.306(c)(2).

M.3 Evaluation Criteria

The following evaluation factors will be considered in awarding the contract:

Factor 1: Technical Approach

Factor 2: Management Approach

Factor 3: Key Personnel

Factor 4: Past Performance

Factor 5: Small Business Participation

Factor 6: Cost

Factors 1 and 2 are equal in weight and are the two most important evaluation factors. The remaining Factors 3 through 6 are listed in descending order of importance. The non-cost evaluation factors, when combined, are significantly more important than Factor 6. The importance of Factor 6 will increase as non-cost factors of proposals become closer in merit.

To be considered eligible for award, an Offeror must receive a minimum “Acceptable” rating under Factors 1, 2, 3, and 5. Failure to meet a requirement will result in a deficiency being assessed during evaluation, and the Offeror will be ineligible for award.

The following definitions will be used to document the evaluation of proposals:

• A strength is defined as an aspect of the proposal that increases the likelihood of successful contract performance.

• A significant strength is defined as an aspect of the proposal that appreciably increases the likelihood of successful contract performance.

• A weakness is defined as a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

• A significant weakness is defined as a flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

• A 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. See FAR 15.001.

M.4 Factor 1: Technical Approach

The Offeror will be evaluated on how well their technical approach will fulfill the functions/requirements of the exemplar PWS sections and demonstrate the ability to successfully perform all contract requirements.

M.5 Factor 2: Management Approach

The Offeror will be evaluated on how well their management approach demonstrates their ability to successfully manage all contract requirements.

M.6 Factor 3: Key Personnel

Based on the resumes provided and considering the PWS requirements, the Offeror will be evaluated on how well the Key Personnel demonstrate appropriate qualifications, education, and experience for the work they will be accomplishing. Relevant related Government program security experience will be rated higher. Relevant DoD Science & Technology experience will be rated higher than experience at other Government agencies. Current employment with the prime contractor or proposed subcontractor will also be rated higher.

M.7 Factors 1, 2, and 3 Ratings Table

Based on the above assessments, the Offeror’s Factors 1, 2, and 3 will be evaluated using a

Combined Technical/Risk Rating. The Combined Technical/Risk Rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings. Each Offeror will receive one Combined

Technical/Risk Rating for each Factor 1, 2, and 3.

Offerors will not receive separate adjectival risk ratings; however, the following risk descriptions will be utilized within the determination of the Combined Technical/Risk Ratings:

Risk Level Description

Low 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.

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

High 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.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

Combined Technical/Risk Evaluations will utilize the combined technical/risk ratings listed below:

Adjectival Rating Description

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal is unawardable.

M.8 Factor 4: Past Performance

The Offeror will be evaluated on their probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The past performance evaluation will consider each Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying services that meet the contract’s requirements. In accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2), the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in Offeror’s performance will be considered. These are combined to establish one performance confidence assessment rating for each Offeror.

Past performance information may be obtained from any other sources available to the

Government, to include, but not limited to, the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting

System (CPARS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; the Defense Contract

Management Agency; and interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Fee

Determining Officials.

There are three aspects that will be considered in the past performance evaluation:

a) Recency: Performance since January 1, 2016

b) Relevancy: Similar in size, scope, and complexity to the PWS requirements

Each submission, and potentially other past performance information found, will be categorized as one of four levels of relevancy as shown below:

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

c) Quality o The Evaluation Team will review all past performance information collected and determine the quality of the Offeror’s performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate these into the performance confidence assessment.

o A separate quality assessment rating will not be assessed; rather, the past performance confidence assessment rating is based on the Offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance.

Past performance evaluations will utilize the confidence assessment ratings listed below:

Substantial Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has a high expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

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

Neutral Confidence No recent/relevant performance record is available or the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has a low expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has no expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

In the case of Offerors for which there is no information on past contract performance or where past contract performance information is not available, the Offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on Factor 4: Past Performance. In this case, the Offeror’s past performance is unknown and assigned a performance confidence rating of “neutral.” Although the Evaluation Team will not rate an Offeror that lacks recent, relevant past performance favorably or unfavorably with regard to past performance, the Source Selection Authority may determine that a “Substantial Confidence” or “Satisfactory Confidence” past performance rating is worth more than a “Neutral Confidence” past performance rating in the best value trade-off.

M.9 Factor 5: Small Business Participation

The Offeror, with the exception of small businesses, will be evaluated on their Small Business

Participation Plan. Specifically, the Offeror will be evaluated on how well their proposal meets or exceeds the following:

a) Extent to which small businesses, their role, and the type of commitment between the prime and small business are identified. Enforceable and in place commitments will be rated more highly.

b) Expertise and appropriateness of work small businesses will perform.

c) Extent of participation of small business by small business type (e.g., service-disabled veteran-owned, HUBZone, small disadvantaged, and women-owned small businesses) in terms of a percentage of the total value of the acquisition. DARPA’s goal is 15% of the total value of the acquisition.

Note: Small business prime Offerors will receive highest consideration for this portion of the

Management Approach.

Based on the above assessment, the Offeror’s Factor 5 will be evaluated using the Small

Business Ratings listed below:

Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

Factor 6: Cost

No adjectival ratings will be utilized for evaluating price reasonableness and cost realism. Price analysis will include a determination of whether the proposed price is fair and reasonable.

Comparison of proposed prices is expected to satisfy the requirement to perform a price analysis since competition normally establishes price reasonableness (FAR 15.404-1(b)(2)(i)). However, the Government may use various price analysis techniques described in FAR 15.404-1 to evaluate whether the proposed price is fair and reasonable.

Proposals will be analyzed to determine if the prices are unbalanced (FAR 15.404-1(g)).

Proposals may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

In accordance with FAR 52.222-46, Evaluation of Compensation for Professional

Employees (February 1993), the Government will evaluate whether the Offeror understands the contract requirements and has proposed a compensation plan appropriate for those requirements.

Professional compensation that is unrealistically low or not in reasonable relationship to the various job categories, since it may impair the Contractor’s ability to attract and retain competent professional service employees, may be viewed as evidence of failure to comprehend the complexity of the contract requirements. Failure to comply with these provisions may constitute sufficient cause to justify rejection of a proposal.

Cost realism will be analyzed to determine what the Government should realistically expect to pay for the proposed effort, the Offeror’s understanding of the work, and the Offeror’s ability to perform the contract. The cost realism analysis will be performed to determine the probable cost of performance for each Offeror. The probable cost may differ from the proposed cost and will reflect the Government’s best estimate of the cost of the contract that is most likely to result from the Offeror’s proposal. The probable cost will be determined by adjusting each Offeror’s proposed cost, and fee when appropriate, to reflect additions or reductions in cost elements to realistic levels based on the results of the cost realism analysis. The resultant probable cost shall be used for purposes of evaluation to determine the best value. If an Offeror fails to provide adequate information to support a cost realism analysis, their proposal may be found unrealistic and unawardable. Negative consequences may result from an Offeror proposing a cost that is too low, including elimination of proposal.