Section L and M_draft.pdf

SSP Attachment 4

Section L - Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors Proposal Requirements

I. Proposal Format

A. General: The following instructions cover the preparation and submittal of the offeror’s proposal for this solicitation. Offerors must follow the instructions contained herein. Offerors are cautioned that any noncompliance with the terms and conditions of the RFP may cause their proposal to be determined not eligible for award. If a joint venture arrangement exists for this acquisition, the offeror shall provide a copy of the joint venture agreement that is signed and dated by all joint venture members as part of the proposal submission. Offerors shall submit only one proposal for TDSSe³ as the Government will review only one proposal per offeror. The proposal shall be clear, concise, and shall include sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiating the validity of stated claims. No additional proposals (i.e., one

(1) offeror submitting two (2) proposals based on differing approaches) shall be submitted. Proposals must be received by Contracting Officer, Kristen Campbell, Kristen.campbell.2@us.af.mil, and Contracting Specialists Ms. LaPrell Todd, travica.todd@us.af.mil, and Mrs. Alyssa Thomas, alyssa.thomas.3@us.af.mil, via encrypted email or DOD SAFE no later than the date and time specified in Block 9 on the face page of the RFP. NO PAPER COPIES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

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.

B. Communications: Exchanges of source selection information after submission of the initial proposal packages between the Government and offerors will be controlled by the Contracting Officer. Email may be used to transmit such information only if the email can be sent encrypted and must include “Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104” in the subject line of the email. In order to facilitate the sending and receiving of encrypted emails, offerors may use any email configured that is S/MIME compatible and configured to support encryption. Non-encrypted proposals will not be accepted. If you intend to submit your source selection information via encrypted email, you will need to contact the Buyer/Contracting Officer indicated on the face page of the solicitation prior to that first submittal in order to exchange certificates used for encryption. To ensure the process is working correctly, send a test encrypted message first (without including any source selection information). Otherwise, source selection information will be transmitted via direct mailing or DoD SAFE). When submitting source selection information via email, file suppression utilities, to include but not limited to zip files, will not be accepted.

The test encrypted message process is as follows:

1. The offeror shall send a digitally signed “test” e-mail message containing no proprietary or source selection information to kristen.campbell.2@us.af.mil, travica.todd@us.af.mil, and alyssa.thomas.3@us.af.mil. Please clearly identify the email as a “Test email for Technical Data Support Services - Enterprise RFP FA8530-24-R-B001”.

2. The PCO will open the test e-mail and add (or update) the sender’s e-mail address (and corresponding encryption certificate) to their Outlook “Contacts List”.

3. The PCO will send a digitally signed reply to the sender’s e-mail address.

4. The sender must open the PCO’s digitally signed reply and add (or update) the PCO’s e-mail address in their “Contacts List” (For Outlook users - right-click the name in the “From” box, and then click” Add to Contacts” on the shortcut menu. Shortcut menu: a menu that shows a list of commands relevant to a particular item. To display a shortcut menu, right-click an item or press shift + F10. If you already have a contact entry for this person, select “Update New Information” from this contact to the existing one).

5. When you are ready to send an encrypted email, ensure encryption is selected and include “Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104” in the subject line of the email.

If an offeror’s computer system cannot support encryption technology, DoD Safe at https://safe.apps.mil is the preferred alternative method of electronic submissions. The offeror should send an unencrypted email, including “Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104” in the subject line, requesting a Drop Link for transmission purposes. When submitting source selection information via email (to include DoD SAFE), file suppression utilities, to include but not limited to zip files, will not be accepted.

NOTE: When sending files via encrypted email, please note there is a size limit of 20MB.

NOTE: When sending files via DoD SAFE, please note there is a size limit of 8GB, as well as a 25 files number limit. Offerors shall advise the PCO and buyer of any submissions that will be outside of these limitations so that multiple DoD SAFE drop-off request links can be sent. A formal notice must be sent to the PCO and buyer for a drop off link to be sent. Drop off request/links sent to companies by the Government are only valid for 14 days. Additionally, drop off request/links are only good for one submittal per use.

If the offeror chooses not to utilize encrypted email or DoD Safe, the offeror shall send the PCO correspondence at the time that it submits the proposal stating that it accepts the risk of sending and receiving unencrypted electronic mail.

II. Volume Organization

A. General: Proposals shall be submitted to the Government in three (3) separate volumes as set forth below. The titles and contents of the volumes shall be as defined in this table, all of which shall be within the required page limits and with the number of copies as specified below. The attachments identified in the table shall be separately tabbed and identified in a three-ring, loose-leaf binders, as necessary.

VOLUME VOLUME TITLE DIGITAL

COPIES

PAGE LIMIT

I Completed RFP 1 N/A

II Technical Proposal 1 85

III Cost/Price Proposal 1 N/A

In addition to the page limitations set forth above, proposal volumes shall comply with the following format:

1. Proposals shall be in the English language and all monies shall be proposed in United States dollars. Each volume shall be marked with the RFP number and the offeror’s name and address, and the number of the Volume, i.e. I, II, and III.

2. Print shall be no smaller than a font size of 12. Page size shall be 8 1/2” X 11,” excluding any drawings, diagrams, and/or supporting illustrations, spreadsheets, etc. Charts, graphs, drawings, diagrams, supporting illustrations, or spreadsheets shall not be greater than 11” x 17”. Margins shall be no smaller than 1 inch and each page within a volume shall be numbered consecutively. Elaborate formats or color presentations are not desired or required.

3. The page limitation for Volume II, Written Technical Proposal is 85 cumulative pages. The page limitations include any charts, graphs, drawings, diagrams, supporting illustrations, spreadsheets, etc., but excludes any cover pages, table of contents, or list of acronyms (if utilized). Offerors are cautioned that any pages that exceed the page limitations shall not be read but shall be removed and retained in the contract file without being considered in the evaluation.

4. Page limitations may be placed on responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs), if issued. The specified page limits for EN responses will be identified in the letters forwarding the ENs to offerors or on the EN form itself.

5. Each page containing proprietary information should be so marked and each page should contain the following legend at the bottom footer of each sheet.

“The information contained on this page is PROPRIETARY to (Insert company name here) and shall not be released to others or used for purposes other than for evaluation without the written consent of (Insert company name here)”

6. Each page should contain the following legend at the bottom of each sheet:

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION—SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104

CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION

7. With the exception of the cover page in Volume I, each page shall not contain company-specific logos, letterheads, company names.

Note: Company name will be redacted from Technical Review only.

B. Volume I, Completed RFP

1. General: Volume I, Completed RFP shall consist of the completed and signed RFP, to include any amendments issued, with a cover letter delineating any exceptions taken to the RFP terms and conditions with accompanying rationale. However, offerors are cautioned that any noncompliance with the terms and conditions of the RFP may cause their proposal to be determined not eligible for award. Offerors shall ensure that all clauses and provisions that require “fill-in” information are appropriately completed.

2. Cross-Reference Matrix: The offeror shall fill out the cross-reference matrix at RFP Attachment 1 indicating where in its proposal the information can be found as it relates to the RFP. The cross-reference matrix will be utilized as a tool to show critical interrelationships and dependencies among the technical requirements document Performance-Based Work Statement (PWS), the Contract Line Item Number (CLIN), the Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL), Section L (Instructions to Offerors), and Section M (Evaluation Basis for Award). The cross reference matrix will help an offeror ensure it has responded to all the evaluation criteria and proposal submittal requirements identified in the solicitation. If the matrix conflicts with any other requirement, direction, or provision of this solicitation, the other reference shall take precedence over the matrix. Additionally, to the extent the matrix discloses details as to the manner by which the Government intends to evaluate the offeror’s proposals for award, Section M references in the matrix are for informational purposes only, and the Government shall be obligated to evaluate proposals solely in conformance with Section M of the solicitation.

C. Volume II, Written Technical Proposal

1. General: The written technical proposal shall be clear, concise, and include all the information required by this provision in sufficient detail for effective evaluation. 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 the Government has no prior knowledge of their capabilities, work processes, facilities, and experience and will base its evaluation on the information presented in the offeror’s technical proposal.

2. Format and Specific Content: The following information shall be provided in the written technical proposal and will be evaluated to assess the proposed technical approach and associated technical risk in accordance with Section M, Evaluation Basis for Award. The written technical proposal shall address each of the following subfactors to describe the offeror’s proposed approach to performing the requirements set forth in the PWS.

For each subfactor, the offeror shall identify risks, if any, associated with the proposed approach and actions the offeror will take to mitigate the identified risks (for example, potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance). Describe the impact of each identified risk in terms of its potential to interfere with or prevent the successful accomplishment of other contract requirements. Propose a realistic "workaround" or risk mitigation for identified risks within each subfactor. Identify and classify any new risks introduced by such risk mitigation. If no risks/mitigations are identified within a subfactor, it indicates the offeror does not consider there to be any risk associated with their proposed approach in the subfactor. The Government reserves the right to independently identify risks with the proposed approach outside of those risks identified by the offerors themselves.

The technical evaluation will not use past performance as a determining factor and offerors referencing performance experience or successes in-lieu-of actual methodology may be considered a deficiency and a higher risk than those offerors that identify the actual methodology required to satisfy each technical subfactor.

Subfactor One (Management Plan):

The offeror’s written technical proposal shall provide a management plan, which describes how the offeror intends to successfully manage and perform the requirements of the TDSSe³ PWS.

The plan shall detail an approach to managing the following:

1. Approach to employee management (such as, internal team communication, monitoring of team member activities, ability to manage multiple orders across numerous geographic locations, how you plan to recruit, hire, train, employees capable of supporting the scope of the TDSSe³ RFP Attachment 6 PWS and how you plan to retain and minimize employee vacancies in accordance with the TDSSe³ RFP Attachment 6 PWS).

2. Approach to managing various levels of classification up to and including, Sensitive/Top Secret/Cosmic Top Secret Compartmented Information (SCI), including subcontracting, facilities and obtaining personnel with the appropriate security clearances.

3. Approach to manage cost of labor (such as, task integration, optimization of staff, subcontracting and cross training).

4. Approach to managing Service Contract Act requirements (such as, labor mapping determinations, wage adjustments, fringe benefits, and subcontracting).

Subfactor Two (Capability Task), RFP Attachment 4:

The offeror’s written technical proposal shall provide a detailed narrative, with supporting documentation, to demonstrate the offeror’s approach to satisfying the scenarios within the TDSSe³ RFP, RFP Attachment 4 Capability Task and in accordance with RFP Attachment 6

PWS. In addition to the requirements identified in RFP Attachment 4, the proposal shall address the following for each scenario:

1. Knowledge of technical data policies, systems and resources needed to complete a process flow chart, a clear chronological narrative of activities from start to end, and describe systems, software, metadata, and government support used to accomplish each scenario.

Subfactor Three (Awardable Task), RFP Attachment 5:

The offeror’s written technical proposal shall provide a detailed narrative with supporting documentation to demonstrate the offeror’s approach to satisfying the Awardable Task in accordance with the TDSSe³ RFP, RFP Attachment 5 and PWS. In addition to the requirements identified in RFP Attachment 5, paragraph 2, the proposal shall also address the following:

1. Describe how the Awardable Task will be implemented.

2. Describe how the Awardable Task will be managed with minimal government intervention.

3. Identify the appropriate labor skills mix and hours required to effectively, efficiently and successfully accomplish the Awardable Task.

4. Describe how and when the offeror will apply technical data quality assurance processes.

D. Volume III, Cost/Price

1. General Instructions: The offeror shall submit the following cost and pricing information in Volume III, Cost/Price:

a. The offeror shall complete the RFP Attachment ‘Attch 2 - Cost-Price Evaluation Model’ based on the RFP Attachment ‘RFP Attch 3- Labor Categories’ that will be provided by the Government.

b. Detailed table of contents.

c. Glossary of all abbreviations and acronyms used, with an explanation for each.

d. Definitions as necessary.

e. A list identifying each major/minor subcontractor and/or vendor, reflecting the estimated total price, by CLIN, for each subcontractor/vendor.

f. Date of current Forward Pricing Rate Agreement (FPRA) or Forward Pricing Rate Recommendation (FPRR) for the Prime and for all subcontractors with a proposed value equal to or greater than $2,000,000 (hereinafter referred to as major subcontractors) for CLINs X002, X003, X004, X006, and X008 Rates and factors shall be supplied for the Prime and all major subcontractors. If an FPRA or FPRR is not available, refer below to subparagraph i.

g. Names, addresses, telephone numbers, and e-mail address of the Prime Offeror’s (and the Prime Offeror’s major subcontractors and/or teaming partners) cognizant Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) administrative contracting officer (ACO) and cognizant Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) office.

h. Synopsis of Current Estimating, Purchasing, Cost Accounting Standards, Disclosure Statement, Accounting System, and Adequacy Determination for the Prime Offeror:

The Offeror shall provide a summary description of the Offeror’s standard estimating system or methods, current policies, and/or new policies. The Offeror shall state whether the estimating system and new policies have been reviewed by the Government and shall provide evidence of review and/or Administrative Contracting Officer approval. The Offeror shall provide any known/cited estimating system deficiencies and identify any deviations from the Offeror’s established/standard estimating procedures used in preparing this proposal. For known/cited estimating system or methods non-compliances, provide a schedule and description of corrective actions the offeror is taking to eliminate the non-compliance issues.

The Offeror shall provide a summary description of the Offeror’s purchasing system or methods. The Offeror shall state whether the purchasing system has been reviewed by the Government and provide evidence of review and/or Administrative Contracting Officer approval. The Offeror shall provide any known/cited purchasing system deficiencies and identify any deviations from the Offeror’s established/standard purchasing procedures used in preparing this proposal. For known/cited purchasing system or methods non-compliances, provide a schedule and description of corrective actions the Offeror is taking to eliminate the non-compliance issues.

In accordance with FAR 16.301-3(a) (3) and 9.104-1(e), the Offeror shall utilize an accounting system that is adequate for determining costs applicable to the contract. The Offeror shall provide a summary description of the Offeror’s accounting system and state whether it is compliant with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. The Offeror shall also state whether the accounting system has been reviewed and approved by the Government and provide evidence of the review and approval by DCAA / DCMA. The Offeror shall provide any known/cited accounting system deficiencies and identify any deviations from the Offeror’s standard procedures in preparing this proposal. For known/cited accounting system or methods non- compliances, provide a schedule and description of corrective actions the Offeror is taking to eliminate the non-compliance issues. In the event the Offeror’s accounting system has not been reviewed and approved by DCAA/DCMA, the Offeror shall complete the enclosed ‘Pre-Award Survey’ (RFP Attachment 13) and submit the completed document as part of Volume III: Cost/Price submission. The Government will forward the document to DCAA in order to initiate their review of the Offeror’s accounting system(s) to determine if it is adequate for a cost-reimbursement contract.

The Offeror shall provide a summary description of the Offeror’s current Cost Accounting Standards disclosure statement. The Offeror shall state whether the current Cost Accounting Standards disclosure statement has been reviewed by the Government and provide evidence of review and/or Administrative Contracting Officer approval.

The Offeror shall provide any currently known/cited Cost Accounting Standards non-compliances and identify any deviations from the Offeror’s Cost Accounting Standards disclosure statement used in preparing this proposal. For known/cited Cost Accounting Standards non-compliances provide a schedule and description of corrective actions the Offeror is taking to eliminate the non-compliance issues.

i. Cost or Pricing Data Requirements: It is anticipated that pricing of this action will be based on adequate price competition; therefore, Offerors are not required to submit certified cost or pricing data. However, if after receipt of proposals it is determined that adequate price competition does not exist, certified cost or pricing data (see FAR 15.406-2, Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data) shall be required.

i. Elemental Cost Breakouts: Irrespective of the presence of adequate price competition, breakouts by individual cost elements shall be provided for proposed rates applicable to CLIN(s) X002, X003, X004, X006, and X008 for the Prime offeror and all major subcontractors, to assist in the determination of realism. Elemental cost breakouts shall be provided as part of the offeror’s proposal and shall be in .xls file format (with live working formulas) as provided in the “On Site Cost Element Breakout” and “Off Site Cost Element Breakout” worksheets contained within RFP Attachment 2 Cost-Price Evaluation Model. Any other type of file format will not be accepted. Offerors should refer to the format indicated in Table 15-2 of FAR

15.408 for instructions on submitting acceptable elemental cost breakouts.

NOTE: Certified Cost or Pricing Data is Not Required unless it is determined that adequate price competition does not exist.

In support of the elemental cost breakouts, all offerors (Prime and major subcontractors) who have neither a FPRA nor a FPRR shall submit the following items/information as part of their proposal. If any of the items/information is not available for a particular offeror, it shall be noted in the offeror’s response to the

RFP.

1. Previous three years’ actual historical rates for each individual cost element used in developing the proposed unit costs

2. Breakout of actual expenses included in the indirect cost pools and respective bases, from the previous three years

3. Breakout of the budgeted forecasts for the indirect pools and bases used in developing the proposed unit costs, covering the entire contract period (Basic and Options)

4. Certified payroll verification with current labor rates, cross-referenced to the respective proposed labor categories shall be provided in support of the proposed direct labor rates for year one. If year one proposed rates are not supported by current labor, offeror shall provide assumptions for hiring individuals, and labor rates that will be offered.

All information submitted in support of items 1-3 above shall be in .xls file format with live working formulas. Any other type of file format will not be accepted for items 1-3, but is acceptable for item 4. It is the offeror’s/joint venture member’s responsibility to review all proposals submitted by any major subcontractor for accuracy and format. It is also the offeror’s/joint venture member’s responsibility to submit all major subcontractor proposed unit costs, major subcontractor elemental cost breakouts, and major subcontractor documentation in support of the elemental cost breakouts, as part of the offeror’s/joint venture member’s proposal. For any of the above referenced information that a major subcontractor may not be willing to provide directly to the offeror/joint venture member, the offeror/joint venture member shall instruct the major subcontractor to provide that information directly to the Government in accordance with the terms and conditions of this solicitation.

In accordance with (IAW) FAR 15.404-1(d), cost realism analysis shall be performed on cost- reimbursement contracts. All offerors and subcontractors valued at equal to or greater than $2,000,000 (for the entire effort to include all option and ordering periods) shall provide data other than certified cost and pricing data using the “On Site Cost Element Breakout” and “Off Site Cost Element Breakout” worksheets within RFP Attachment 2 Cost-Price Evaluation Model along with accompanying schedules, lists, and narratives to substantiate the cost realism for CLIN(s) X002, X003, X004, X006, and X008. Note for any subcontractors, to include minor subcontractors (with less than $2,000,000 in total costs), offerors shall include roll-up cost data on Cost Formats A and C. If necessary, the Contracting Officer may request additional minor subcontractor cost data during discussions.

ii. The Offeror’s cost proposal shall contain the proposed fully burdened rates and add-on factors at cost (less profit/fee) for performing the work described in the Performance Based Work Statement (PWS) and the attached CDRLs.

The Offeror’s proposal is presumed to represent its best effort in response to the solicitation. Any inconsistency, whether real or apparent, between promised performance and cost shall be explained in the proposal. Any significant inconsistency, if unexplained, raises a fundamental issue with the Offeror’s understanding of the nature and scope of work required, and ability to perform the contract, and may be grounds for rejection of the proposal. The burden of proof as to the credibility of the cost proposal rests with the Offeror.

iii. Price Reasonableness and Cost Realism: The Offeror shall provide sufficiently detailed proposals to demonstrate price reasonableness and cost realism. The burden of proof for cost realism of proposed costs rests with the Offeror. The Offeror is responsible for ensuring that the proposed fully burdened rates and add-on factors at cost (less profit/fee) for all option and ordering periods shown in the “On Site Cost Element Breakout” and “Off Site Cost Element Breakout” worksheets of RFP Attachment 2 match the proposed fully burdened rates and add-on factors at cost (less profit/fee) for corresponding labor category in the “Format B” worksheets.

CLIN Description

X001 Services (FFP): Offerors will propose labor rates burdened through cost meaning inclusive of indirect costs such as fringe, overhead, and/or G&A but excluding profit.

X002 Services (CPFF): Offerors will propose labor rates burdened through cost meaning inclusive of indirect costs such as fringe, overhead, and/or G&A but excluding fee. The offeror shall a breakout by cost element to demonstrate the burdened rate calculation.

X003 Travel (CRNF): Offerors will propose a non-labor add-on factor to account for indirect costs such as overhead and/or G&A but excluding fee.

X004 Materials (CRNF): Offerors will propose a non-labor add-on factor to account for indirect costs such as handling, overhead, and/or G&A but excluding fee.

X005 Other Direct Costs (FFP): Offerors will propose a non-labor add-on factor to account for indirect costs such as overhead and/or G&A but excluding fee.

X006 Other Direct Costs (CPFF): Offerors will propose a non-labor add-on factor to account for indirect costs such as overhead and/or G&A but excluding fee.

X007 Over and Above (FFP): Offerors will propose labor rates burdened through cost meaning inclusive of indirect costs such as fringe, overhead, and/or G&A but excluding profit.

X008 Over and Above (CPFF): Offerors will propose labor rates burdened through cost meaning inclusive of indirect costs such as fringe, overhead, and/or G&A but excluding fee. The offeror shall a breakout by cost element to demonstrate the burdened rate calculation.

X009 Data (NSP)

2. Attachment 2: Cost-Price Evaluation Model:

On-Base and Off-Base Rates: Offerors shall propose labor rates burdened to the cost line for the four-year basic ordering period and option for five one-year ordering periods for both Firm Fixed Price (FFP) and Cost-Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) CLINs. It is incumbent on the Offeror to ensure that ALL labor categories are covered by their team for both on-base AND off-base rates for each of the known locations. Offerors without a complete set of on-base and off-base rates for each known location will be considered non-compliant. FFP and CPFF labor rates will be inclusive of all applicable labor loadings but will exclude profit/fee. These rates will be developed for all known locations: Robins Air Force Base (AFB), Tinker AFB, and Hill AFB.

All proposed labor rates shall be rounded to two decimal places. If any proposed labor rate does not meet the required rounding, the Government will adjust that labor rate to two decimal places. The Government-adjusted labor rate will become the offeror’s labor rate.

Annual hours: Labor rates shall be based on an eight (8) hour workday, forty (40) hour work week, and a two-thousand-eighty (2080) hour work year. Any leap year will consist of a two-thousand-eighty-eight (2088) hour work year.

NOTE: On-base rates will be for work performed on-base at each of the known AFB locations. Off-base rates will be for work performed at a contractor’s facility, usually within the vicinity of an AFB.

Labor Add-on Factors:

1. Overtime: This factor shall include the cost to cover overtime work.

2. Night Shift: This factor shall include the cost to cover night shift work (i.e. 11PM to 8AM may be considered night shift).

3. Swing Shift: This factor shall include the cost to cover swing shift work (i.e. 3PM to 12AM may be considered Swing Shift).

Non-Labor Add-on Factors: Non-Labor Add-on Factors allow the Offeror a way to recoup costs that are not labor-related. If the Add-on Factor provided is left blank, then the Government will assume that the Offeror means for those factors to be zero (1.0000 on RFP Atch 2- Cost-Price Evaluation Model is equivalent to a factor of zero). The Non-Labor Add-on Factors should encompass any additional cost of handling or other direct cost excluded from the burdened hourly labor rate. Profit and fee shall not be included in the add-on factors.

1. Material Handling: This factor shall include the indirect cost associated with handling, storing, invoicing, processing, and maintaining and/or other costs not covered within the bill of materials.

2. Other Direct Costs: This factor includes the indirect cost associated with one-time contract requirements identified within a task order.

3. Travel G&A: This factor shall include other non-typical costs associated with travel.

The offeror’s proposed burdened labor rates in the “Format B – PRIME” rate worksheets for all locations will be applied to Government-estimate hours for CLINs X001, X002, X007, and X008 and the offeror’s proposed add-on factors will be applied to Government-estimate base values for CLINs X003, X004, X005, and X006.

Pursuant to FAR 52.217-8 Option to Extend Services, an evaluated price will be calculated for all CLINs 90XX by multiplying the offeror’s Option 1, Year 9 evaluated price by fifty percent (50%).

Data beyond that required by this instruction shall not be submitted. All data relating to the proposed price, including all required supporting documentation, must be included in the section of the proposal designated as the Price volume. Under no circumstances shall this data and documentation be included elsewhere in the proposal.

Compliance with these requirements is mandatory and failure to comply may result in rejection of the proposal.

In accordance with FAR 15.403-1(b) and 15.403-3(a), data other than certified cost or pricing data may be required to support a determination of price reasonableness. Data shall be provided in accordance with FAR 15.403-5. If, after receipt of proposals, the CO determines that there is insufficient data available to determine price reasonableness and none of the exceptions in FAR 15.403-1 apply, the offeror shall be required to submit additional cost or pricing data.

SSP Attachment 5

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

I. Basis for Contract Award

A. Source Selection Methodology: This acquisition will utilize the Tradeoff source selection procedures in accordance with FAR 15.101-2 and 15.3 as supplemented by the DoD Source Selection Procedures referenced in DFARS 215.300 and the DAFFARS Mandatory Procedures 5315.3 to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. The Government intends to award one contract as a result of this solicitation. A decision on the technical acceptability of each offeror’s proposal will be made. For those offerors who are determined to be technically acceptable, tradeoffs may be made between technical risk and cost/price. Technical risk is considered significantly more important than cost/price. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced offeror where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the lower technical risk of the higher priced offeror outweighs the cost difference. To arrive at a best value decision, the SSA will integrate the source selection team’s evaluations of the factors and subfactors described in this provision. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the tradeoff process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the selection process. Offerors are reminded that the Government will only evaluate one proposal from each offeror.

Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal conforms to all required terms and conditions, includes all required representations and certifications, meets all requirements set forth in the RFP and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation as described in paragraph II below.

II. Proposal Evaluation: The evaluation process will be accomplished as follows:

A. General

1. Discussions: The Government intends to award this contract after discussions, which will be held in accordance with FAR 15.306. The Government will consider all offerors that submit timely initial proposals to be within the initial competitive range for purposes of opening discussions promptly after the RFP closes. As a streamlining technique, discussions will be considered formally opened within 30 days after the RFP closes.

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, with the concurrence of the SSA, 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.

Throughout the course of proposal evaluations and discussions, the Government reserves the right to establish multiple competitive ranges in accordance with FAR 15.306(c)(3) and FAR 15.306(d)(5).

B. Gating:

An RFP compliance review will be conducted for all offerors that submit a timely initial proposal.

Proposals that are complete, in accordance with Volume I, and received before 4:30PM Eastern Standard Time on the solicitation closing/proposal response date will move to Gate 1. Incomplete, late, or non-compliant proposals will not proceed to Gate 1.

Gate 1: All offerors within Gate 1 shall have their Volume II, Written Technical Proposal evaluated in accordance with Section M. A technical acceptability rating and a technical risk rating will be applied to each subfactor. Furthermore, the Government will apply Government-estimated hours and base costs to each offeror’s submitted Volume III, Cost/Price Volume to calculate the Total Proposed Price (TPP). The five (5) offerors with the lowest TPP and determined to be technically acceptable in all subfactors and with a low technical risk rating in all subfactors will move to Gate 2.

In the event there are less than five (5) low technical risk rated offerors, offerors with the lowest TPP and determined technically acceptable in all subfactors and with the least amount of moderate technical risk ratings in all subfactors will move to Gate 2 until the number of offerors moved to Gate 2 equals five (5). All offerors evaluated and determined to be technically unacceptable, have any technical risk rating of high or unacceptable, and not in the group of five (5) lowest TPPs will remain in Gate 1.

Gate 2: A complete cost/price evaluation will be conducted for all offerors entering this gate in accordance with Section M. All offerors’ cost/price proposals evaluated and determined to have reasonable, balanced, and realistic prices will proceed into Gate 3. All offerors evaluated and determined to be unreasonable, unbalanced, and/or unrealistic will remain in Gate 2.

Gate 3: All offerors within Gate 3 will receive a Final Proposal Revision (FPR) Request in accordance with FAR 15.307(b). All offerors that submit a timely FPR and are evaluated as still meeting the exit criteria for Gates 1 and 2 will meet the Gate 3 exit criteria and move into Gate 4. Offerors that do not submit a timely FPR or the offeror’s FPR is evaluated as no longer meeting the exit criteria for Gates 1 and 2 will remain in Gate 3.

Gate 4: The SSA will make a best value decision IAW DoD Source Selection Procedures, and the evaluation criteria established in the evaluation factors for award provision.

NOTES:

• It is the Government’s intention to re-establish the competitive range upon conclusion of Gate 2 evaluations. All offerors that do not meet the applicable exit criteria for Gates 1 and 2 will be eliminated from the competitive range, and no further proposal revisions or submittals will be accepted for evaluation in accordance with FAR 15.306(c)(3), FAR 15.306(d)(5) and FAR 15.307(a). However, this does not preclude the Government’s right to re-establish/re-determine the competitive range at any time during the source selection in accordance with FAR 15.306(c)(3) and FAR 15.306(d)(5).

• The Government reserves the right to reopen the Gating process at any stage to ensure a reasonable pool of offerors is presented to the SSA for an award decision. Upon the conclusion of any gate’s evaluations, if the number of offerors identified as meeting the exit criteria for that gate is determined to not be a reasonable pool of offerors, the Government reserves the right to “reach back” to previous gates to continue discussions with offerors to potentially bring them forward. The determination of a reasonable pool of offerors is within the Government’s discretion and cannot be defined upfront due to the inherent subjective nature of the tradeoff process.

C. Volume I, Completed RFP

1. Completed RFP: Volume I, Completed RFP shall be evaluated to ensure the RFP and any amendments issued are signed, and all “fill-in” clauses and provisions are completed as required. The cover letter shall be evaluated to determine the number, types, and accompanying rationale of exceptions taken to the RFP terms and conditions. The Government reserves the right to determine any exceptions taken to the RFP terms and conditions as being non-compliant with the stated solicitation requirements, and thus render the proposal ineligible for award.

2. Cross-Reference Matrix: The cross-reference matrix, RFP attachment 1, will be utilized as a tool to show critical interrelationships and dependencies among the technical requirements documents

Performance-Based Work Statement (PWS), the Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL), Section L (Instructions to Offerors) and Section M (Evaluation Basis for Award). The cross-reference matrix will help offerors ensure they have responded to all the evaluation criteria and proposal submittal requirements identified in the solicitation. If the matrix conflicts with any other requirement, direction, or provision of this solicitation, the other reference shall take precedence over this matrix. Section M references in the matrix are for informational purposes only, and the Government shall be obligated to evaluate proposals solely in conformance with the provisions of Section M of the solicitation. Failure by the offeror to submit this completed cross reference matrix will result in the offeror being considered as failing to meet the RFP terms and conditions.

D. Volume II, Technical Factor

1. General: Each offeror’s written technical proposal shall be evaluated, based on the subfactors below, to determine if the offeror provides a sound, compliant approach that meets the requirements of the PWS, and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements and their associated risks. The technical proposal addresses each of the following subfactors in sufficient detail. For each subfactor, the offeror identifies risks, if any, associated with the proposed approach and actions the offeror will take to mitigate the identified risks. If no risks/mitigations are identified within a subfactor in the offeror’s proposal, it indicates the offeror does not consider there to be any risk associated with their proposed approach in the subfactor. Offerors are reminded that the Government may independently identify risks with the proposed approach beyond those identified by the offerors themselves.

Subfactor One (Management Plan): This subfactor is met when the written technical proposal provides an acceptable management plan, which describes how the offeror intends to successfully manage and perform the requirements of the TDSSe³ RFP and PWS. The proposal detailed an acceptable approach to managing the following:

1. Approach to employee management (such as, internal team communication, monitoring of team member activities, ability to manage multiple orders across numerous geographic locations, how you plan to recruit, hire, train, and retain employees capable of supporting the scope of the TDSSe³ PWS).

2. Approach to managing various levels of classification up to and including, Sensitive/Top Secret/Cosmic Top Secret Compartmented Information (SCI), including subcontracting, facilities and obtaining personnel with the appropriate security clearances.

3. Approach to manage cost of labor (such as, appropriate task integration, optimization of staff, subcontracting and cross training).

4. Approach to Service Contract Act (such as, mapping determinations, wages, adjustments, fringe benefits, and subcontracting)

Subfactor Two (Capability Task), RFP Attachment 4:

This subfactor is met when the written technical proposal provides an acceptable approach to successfully perform the requirements of the given scenarios in accordance with the TDSSe³ RFP, RFP Attachment 4, and PWS. The proposal detailed an acceptable response to the following:

1. Knowledge of technical data policies, systems and resources needed to complete a process flow chart, a clear chronological narrative of activities from start to end, and describe systems, software, and government support used to accomplish each of the three scenarios.

Subfactor Three (Awardable Task), RFP Attachment 5:

This subfactor is met when the written technical proposal provides an acceptable approach to successfully perform the requirements of the Awardable Task in accordance with the TDSSe³ RFP, RFP Attachment 5, and PWS. The proposal detailed an acceptable approach for the following:

1. Implementing the requirements.

2. Managing the requirements with minimal government intervention.

3. Identifying an acceptable labor skills mix and associated hours required to effectively, efficiently and successfully accomplish the Awardable Task.

4. Implementing technical data quality assurance processes.

2. Technical Rating: The technical rating reflects the evaluation of the acceptability of the offeror’s technical approach for meeting the Government’s requirement. The offeror’s proposal shall be evaluated to determine whether the proposal is acceptable or unacceptable, using the ratings and descriptions outlined in the table below. One technical rating will be assigned to each technical subfactor. In order to be considered awardable, there must be an “acceptable” rating in every subfactor.

Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings:

Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

3. Technical Risk Rating: Technical risk, which is manifested by the identification of weaknesses, assesses the degree to which an offeror’s proposed approach for the requirements of the solicitation may cause disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased government oversight, and/or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. The evaluation will address the Source Selection Team’s identification of any weaknesses and/or significant weaknesses, as well as the offeror’s identified risks and proposed mitigation (if applicable) and document why that is or is not manageable. Each technical subfactor will receive one of the Technical Risk ratings described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, excerpted below.

Technical Risk Ratings:

Adjectival Rating Description

Low Proposal may contain weakness/weaknesses which have low potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, degradation of performance, increased government oversight, or unsuccessful contract performance. Normal contractor emphasis and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

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

High Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to have high potential to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance.

Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will unlikely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a deficiency or a combination of significant weaknesses that causes an unacceptable level of risk of unsuccessful performance.

Note: The Government shall utilize the definitions as provided in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, section 5 for “strength”, “significant strength”, “weakness”, “significant weakness”, “uncertainty”, and “deficiency”. The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion on the applicability of these terms to their proposal.

E. Cost/Price Proposal Factor:

1. Cost/Price Factor: The Government will evaluate each offeror’s proposed prices submitted in Volume III, Cost/Price Proposal, for reasonableness, balance, and cost realism in accordance with paragraphs A, B, and C below. A Total Evaluated Price (TEP), which will include an aggregate calculation of FFP CLINs and a Most Probable Cost (MPC) for cost-type CLINs, will be presented to the Source Selection Authority (SSA) for consideration in making the best value determination. The TEP will be calculated in accordance with paragraph D below, and the TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only. Cost/Price will not receive an adjectival rating. The Government will evaluate each offeror’s cost/price proposal using one or more of the techniques described in FAR 15.404.

A. Reasonableness: The existence of adequate price competition is expected to support a determination of reasonableness. Price analysis techniques may be used to further validate price reasonableness. If adequate price competition is not obtained or if price reasonableness cannot be determined using price analysis of Government obtained information, additional information in accordance with FAR 15.404 may be required to support the proposed prices, such as cost analysis.

B. Balance: Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated cost/price, one or more contract line items (including all ordering and option periods) is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of cost/price analysis techniques. An overstated or understated CLIN cost/price may be due to (a) an illogical progression of rates or factors between program years, (b) unit costs/prices that do not take into account quantity variations, or (c) the “front-loading” of CLINs; either of these situations would reflect an inaccurate “true” cost/price for that CLIN. Front-loading occurs when a larger than normal amount of costs are concentrated in an early contract period. The Government may consider any “front-loaded” CLIN as unbalanced, since acceptance of the proposal would result in advance payment. The Government will analyze offers to determine whether there are unbalanced, separately priced line items or sub-line items. Proposed costs/prices will be compared and evaluated to ensure that a logical progression exists as related to price and/or quantity changes within each offeror’s response to the pricing structure in RFP Attachment 2, Cost-Price Evaluation Model. Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

C. Cost realism: The Government will perform cost realism analysis on the proposed costs and add-on factors in cost-type CLINs X002, X003, X004, X006, and X008. Cost realism is the process of independently reviewing and evaluating specific elements of each offeror’s proposed cost estimate and/or add-on factor to determine whether the estimated 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 technical proposal. The burden of proof for cost realism rests with the offeror.

Accordingly, proposals will be evaluated to assess the likelihood that the proposed technical…