Section L (Instructions to Offerors) and Section M (Evaluation Factors) .pdf

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION - SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.104)

DEC 2024

SECTION L: Instructions, conditions and notices to Offerors

1. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

a. In order to be considered for award, Offerors must be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) under North American Industry Classification System 541611 Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services, and be under the Size standard $24.5 million dollars. To be eligible for award consideration, Offerors must be capable of performing at least 51% of the total requirement. Offerors proposing to subcontract more than 49% of the requirement will be deemed ineligible for award. This is a mandatory eligibility criterion. Offerors must specify their subcontracting percentage, if any, with VOLUME II – Management Approach.

b. Proposals shall remain valid for a period of at least 180 days from the closing date of the solicitation. Offerors shall submit their Proposals Electronically to the following contract specialists Kelsey L. Thomas at kelsey.l.thomas13.civ@army.mil and Contracting Officer Salma Williams at salma.k.williamson.civ@army.mil . Any portion of the proposal that is changed (as a result of negotiations or proposal revisions) should be annotated and dated. The proposal must be received by the Government before the deadline for proposal submissions listed in block 8 of the SF1449 form. Any proposal that is received after the appointed deadline is “late” and WILL NOT be considered for award.

c. Each paragraph should be single spaced, and shall be separated by at least one blank line. A standard, 12-point minimum font size applies. Arial or Times New Roman fonts are required. Tables and illustrations may use a reduced font size no less than 8-point and may be produced in landscape mode.

d. The following volumes of material shall be submitted:

Volume Title Digital Copies Maximum Pages (not including Table of Contents) I Technical Approach (Factor 1) 1 35 pages total including resumes and letters of intent

(resumes not to exceed 2 page each) II Management Approach (Factor

2) 1 15

III Past Performance (Factor 3) 1 10 mailto:kelsey.l.thomas13.civ@army.mil mailto:salma.k.williamson.civ@army.mil

IV Price (Factor 4) 1 No page limit

V Executive Summary 1 No page limit

NOTE: Pages that exceed the required page limitations will not be evaluated.

Additional pages over the maximum allowed will be removed or not read and will not be evaluated by the Government.

2. PROPOSAL FILES

a. Format. The submission shall be clearly indexed and logically assembled.

Each volume shall be clearly identified with its Title and shall begin at the top of a page.

All pages of each volume shall be appropriately numbered and identified by the complete company name, date and Request for Proposal (RFP) number in the header and/or footer. A Table of Contents for each volume should be created using the Table of Content feature in MS Word. MS Word (doc) files shall use the following page setup parameters:

Margins – Top, Bottom, Left, Right – 1” Gutter – 0” From Edge – Header, Footer 0.5” Page Size, Width – 8.5” Page Size, Height – 11”

The following additional restrictions apply:

b. File Packaging. No hard copies or CDs will be accepted. Files shall be in read-only format, using PDF files. All price breakdown information to aide in the cost/price evaluation shall be submitted in Microsoft Office Excel Read/Write format and viewable in Microsoft Excel 2007. Files should be named with the Offeror name and Volume Title.

c. Content Requirement. All information shall be confined to the appropriate file. The offeror shall confine submissions to essential matters, sufficient to define the proposal in a concise manner, to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of each proposal. Each file of the proposal shall consist of a Table of Contents, Summary Section, and the Narrative discussion. The Summary Section shall contain a brief abstract of the file. Proprietary information shall be clearly marked. The following shall be included in the Narrative discussion:

(i) VOLUME I – Technical Approach (Factor 1)

Performance Work Statement Requirements: Offerors shall provide responses in this Volume which address each requirement listed in Performance Work Statement (PWS). The response to each of these requirements shall provide an explanation indicating the offeror’s ability and proposed methodology to be utilized to meet each requirement. 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 and experience and will base its evaluation on the information presented in the offeror’s proposal.

Technical Capabilities: Offerors shall demonstrate their technical capabilities and understanding of comprehensive training and resource management processes within the Army in the following areas:

• Describe your technical approach to supporting all phases of the Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution (PPBE) process, including data analysis, forecasting, and alignment of training requirements with budgetary constraints. Detail your capabilities with relevant Army PPBE systems and processes.

• Detail your methodology for programming collective training exercises for operational units and institutional training requirements, ensuring alignment with Army priorities and resource availability.

• Describe your approach to developing and implementing a methodology to validate operational and institutional requirements. This should include the ability to translate concepts and ideas into quantifiable cost estimates, leveraging tools like the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Cost and Economics' Cost & Performance Portal. Explain how you would utilize historical GFEBS execution data to inform cost factor determination and audit the performance of programming change packages.

• Demonstrate your technical approach in applying Army Management Structure Code (AMSCO) Dollar Type, and Object Classes within Army financial systems, including their role in accurate resource allocation and tracking.

• Describe your technical approach to identifying potential improvements to applications that track Operations Tempo (OPTEMPO) and other training or operational readiness resources. Focus on methods for enhancing data accuracy, reporting capabilities, and system performance.

• Detail your technical methodology for designing, implementing, and validating Information Technology General Controls that provide auditable controls for Army IT systems. Specify the frameworks and standards (e.g., NIST, ISO 27001) you leverage.

• Describe your technical approach to monitoring internal controls, including automated monitoring tools, exception reporting, and remediation procedures.

Performance Risk Approach: Offerors shall provide a performance plan that recognizes possible performance risks and provide a comprehensive and realistic risk mitigation approach.

Resumes and Letters of Intent: Offerors shall provide resumes and letters of intent countersigned by the employer and prospective employee for each of the proposed (1) Key Personnel and (5) Task Leads as identified in PWS Part 5.4. No more than one resume for each Key Personnel shall be accepted. Resumes shall be no longer than two pages, and shall include the following information:

1. Name

2. Security Clearance (level, date issued, and agency)

3. Name of employer

4. Identify if a current employee (if not a current employee, provide completed Letter of Intent)

5. Education (academic credentials or demonstration of equivalent skills and knowledge through experience; include year, degree, institution, and subject area)

6. Labor category and level

7. Description of current and previous project experience and roles performed (indicate if experience was as a result of a project included in the Past Performance proposal, and start/end dates)

8. Relevant skills demonstrated

If the individual being proposed is not currently an employee of the Prime contractor or major subcontractor and there is no signed letter of intent for that individual, the individual will not be considered sufficient to meet the requirement.

(ii) VOLUME II – Management Approach (Factor 2).

Offerors shall submit their approach to provide an overall quality management team, the offeror’s overall structure, management approach and the capabilities of the managerial team to manage and maintain efficient levels of staffing throughout the contract performance period. Detail your approach to managing personnel at Government locations, including processes for onboarding, training, performance management, and security clearance administration. Detail any tools or systems you utilize for personnel management and tracking.

Offerors shall provide a staffing matrix (organizational chart) which shall contain the following information:

a. Name of individual to fill the (1) Key Personnel and (5) Task Lead positions, to include Letters of Intent

b. Security clearance

c. Position description

d. Position title/Labor Category

e. PWS reference

f. Identify if current employee, contingent hire, or position to be filled

g. Indicate if Prime or subcontractor

Offerors shall provide a Transition In/Out Plan as described in PWS Section

1.6.11. The Offeror shall present a timeline for assuming full contractual responsibility without disruption or degradation of performance. The plan shall propose a realistic and achievable start-up schedule and staffing plan to satisfy the 45- day Phase-in and Phase-out periods.

To be eligible for award consideration, Offerors must be capable of performing at least 51% of the total requirement. Offerors proposing to subcontract more than 49% of the requirement will be deemed ineligible for award. This is a mandatory eligibility criterion. Offerors must specify their subcontracting percentage, if any.

Offerors shall submit an Organizational Conflict of Interest Identification and Mitigation Plan. This plan shall identify all facts that a reasonably prudent person would consider relevant in determining whether a potential conflict of interest currently exists or might arise under the performance of this contract.

The Offeror shall identify at a minimum all current contracts or financial interests that might be affected by the performance of the PWS. Additionally, the Offeror shall identify any potential conflicts of interest, as that term is defined in FAR part 9, that the Offeror reasonably believes could arise during the performance of this contract. The Offeror’s submission should include any subcontractors or team members. The accuracy of the findings presented shall be certified to the best knowledge and belief by an official authorized to bind the company. The Contracting Officer will review statements provided by each Offeror as to the work the company has performed or anticipates; evaluate the submittals considering in-house knowledge as to the company’s program support; and determine whether there is an OCI. For any potential conflicts of interest, the Offeror shall provide a mitigation plan to be reviewed and approved by the Contracting Officer. The mitigation plan shall provide verifiable means of eliminating any significant conflict of interest in the performance of this contract. The mitigation plan shall also describe the contractors’ current policies for identifying, reporting, and preventing future organizational and personal conflicts of interest that might arise in the performance of this contract. If the Contracting Officer determines that any actual or potential OCIs cannot be mitigated, then the Offeror shall not be eligible for award.

(iii) VOLUME III – Past Performance (Factor 3). This volume shall contain past performance information regarding recent and relevant contracts. This volume shall not exceed 10 pages. Offerors shall submit no more than three (3) past performance examples. “Recent” is defined as contracts under which work has been performed within the past five (5) years from the release date of this RFP. “Relevant” is defined a measure of the extent of similarity between the service/support effort, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and subcontract/ teaming or other comparable attributes of past performance examples and the solicitation requirements. The Government will use past performance information provided by the offeror, and other information obtained from other sources, including data in Government files or data obtained through interviews with personnel familiar with the contractor and their current and past performance under Federal, State or Local government or commercial contracts for same or similar services to develop an assessment of the offerors.This volume shall be organized into the following sections:

(1) Section 1 – Contract Descriptions. This section shall include the following information in the following format.

(a) Place of performance, CAGE Code and DUNS Number. If the work was performed as a subcontractor, also provide the name of the prime contractor and Point of Contact (POC) within the prime contractor organization.

(b) Government contracting activity, and the Procuring Contracting Officer’s name and e-mail address.

(c) Government’s technical representative/Contracting Officer’s Representative and current email address.

(d) Government contract administration activity and the Administrative Contracting Officer’s name and current e-mail address.

(f) Contract Number (and/or Delivery Order Numbers if applicable).

(g) Contract Type (specific type such as Fixed-Price (FP), Cost Reimbursement (CR), Time & Material (T&M), etc.). In the case of Indefinite Delivery contracts, indicate specific type (Requirements, Definite Quantity, and Indefinite Quantity) and secondary contract type (FP, CR, T&M, etc.).

(h) Awarded price/cost.

(i) Final or projected final price/cost.

(j) Original delivery schedule, including dates of start and completion or work.

(k) Final or projected final, delivery schedule, including dates of start and completion of work.

(l) Narrative: A specific narrative explanation of each contract, describing the objectives achieved and detailing how the effort is relevant to the requirement of this RFP. The narrative shall also identify whether any of the Personnel proposed for this effort contributed directly or indirectly to any of the past performance citations.

(m) For any contracts that did not/do not meet technical performance requirements, provide a brief explanation of the reason(s) for the shortcomings, any corrective action(s) taken to avoid recurrence, a copy of any Cure Notices or Show

Cause Letters. If any of the contracts listed were terminated, describe the type and reasons for the termination.

(3) Section 4 – New Corporate Entities. New corporate entities may submit data on prior contracts involving its offices and employees. However, in addition to the other requirements in this section, the offeror shall discuss in detail the role performed by such persons in the prior contracts cited. Information should be included in the files described in the sections above. Letters of Commitment shall be included in the proposal for these employees in order to be considered.

(4) Submissions. Offerors are discouraged from providing points of contact with another contractors’ facility, i.e., in case an offeror (or one of his/her team members) is in a subcontract with another contractor who has submitted a proposal on the same requirement. Offerors shall provide and submit the prime contract number and all Governmental agency POCs in lieu of subcontract numbers or prime contract POCs in situations as described above.

(ii) VOLUME IV – Price (Factor 4).

1. Price Proposal Narrative, including a Table of Contents, Summary Section and Narrative Discussion, and

2. Completed Microsoft Excel Price Proposal Model workbook (Attachment 01)

To be considered for award, all Offerors shall complete and submit the Price Proposal Model Excel Workbook with the instructions provided therein as well as an accompanying price narrative volume.

If proprietary data will not be shared between the Prime and Subcontractor(s), each Subcontractor’s price proposal volume may be submitted as a sealed volume directly to the KO and Contract Specialist via the proposal submission instructions outlined in solicitation.

The Price Volume shall consist of all information required to support proposed costs and prices. Adequate competition is anticipated in response to this commercial, Firm Fixed Price (FFP) solicitation.

Therefore, in accordance with FAR 15.403-1(b)(1) and (b)(3), certified cost or pricing data is not required, and data other than certified cost or pricing may be required in accordance with FAR 15.403-3, however is not currently being requested. In accordance with FAR 15.403-5(b), the KO may specify the format of cost or pricing data or data other than certified cost or pricing data. If the KO determines that data other than certified cost or pricing data is required based on competitive analysis or other factors, Offerors will be requested to submit this additional data later.

The Price Proposal Volume shall consist of a Table of Contents, Summary Section, Narrative discussion, and a completed copy of the Microsoft Excel Price Proposal Model workbook (Attachment 01).

The Summary Section shall contain a brief abstract of the volume.

Each Offeror shall conduct appropriate cost/price analysis to establish the cost/price fairness and reasonableness of any proposed subcontract prices and shall include evidence of the results of these analyses in the Offeror’s price proposal.

a) The Offeror shall include pricing within Attachment - Price Proposal Model template as a separate file/appendix to this volume.

Pricing information shall be contained and addressed ONLY in the Price Volume. Offerors shall follow all the instructions in the price proposal model attachment; additionally, the yellow shaded cells in the template are the only places where information needs to be inputted by the Offerors. Modifications or alterations to the formatting or formulas of the template are only permitted as noted in the pricing model or solicitation. This file shall be submitted in Microsoft Excel format—Offerors shall maintain all spreadsheet formulas as distributed by the Government and shall not convert to PDF, hide or lock cells, etc. Price Proposal spreadsheets/workbooks shall be self-contained and shall not include references to external data sources at time of submission to the Government. The estimated number of full-time-equivalents (FTE) and labor categories are provided by the Government within the price model, which includes labor categories with estimated annual labor hours for the requirements of this PWS.

One (1) Full Time Equivalent (FTE) equals 1,940 or 1,920 hours, depending on positions as shown in Technical Exhibit 3 of the PWS.

Offerors shall propose the skill mix and level of effort (LOE) prescribed by the Government for Key Personnel only within the Price Proposal Model. Offerors may vary the proposed hours and labor categories for Non-Key Personnel to align with the Offeror’s best estimate as to the non-key labor mix needed to satisfy the requirements of the PWS, which will be subject to technical evaluation.

b) Travel/Other Direct Cost: Normalized amounts have been specified and included in the price proposal model for proposal purposes. Each Offeror is to include these amounts in their proposal.

Any material handling and/or G&A to be applied to the Travel and ODCs shall be included within this normalized ceiling amount.

c) For (1) Key Personnel and (5) Task Leads as identified in PWS Part 1.6.8 and Part 5.4, the Offeror shall include signed letters of intent (one page maximum) for those who are not currently employed by the Offeror and shall include the proposed individual’s name, contingent start date, salary amount and position/title. The letters of intent with un-redacted salary amount shall be included in an appendix to the price proposal narrative volume.

d) Use of uncompensated overtime is not encouraged per FAR 37.115-2(a). In accordance with FAR 52.237- 10, Identification of Uncompensated Overtime, the Offeror and/or subcontractor shall indicate/detail the existence of any uncompensated overtime within their proposed labor rates and its cost/price impact on the Offeror's or subcontractor's proposal.

e) There is no page limitation on the price proposal. The Government strongly encourages inclusion of supporting documentation and schedules necessary to substantiate the fairness and reasonableness of the proposed costs/prices.

(v) VOLUME V – Executive Summary

Within this section, the Offeror shall provide a Title Page, a Table of Contents, and Summary Section. This volume shall include the following:

(1) Request for Proposal number;

(2) Company Name and Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) Code

(3) Point of contact and alternate, including first and last name, position, telephone number, and email;

(4) Date of proposal submission and expiration date (valid minimum 180 calendar days)

(5) Signed solicitation form

(6) System for Award management (SAM) record print-out of the company/Offeror’s “Core Data”

(7) Completed Representations and Certifications (Section K).

Certifications and Representations – Each offeror shall complete (fill-in and signatures) the solicitation using the file (without other modification to the file) provided with the RFP. An authorized official of the firm shall sign the SF 33 and all certifications requiring original signature. An Acrobat PDF file shall be created to capture the signatures for submission.

SECTION M: Evaluation Factors for Award

The award will be made based on the best value trade-off approach to the proposal that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the 4 evaluation factors: Technical, Management Approach, Past Performance, and Price.

The Technical factor is significantly more important than the Management factor, which is more important than the Past Performance factor, which is more important than the Price factor. All non-priced Factors combined are more important than Price.

Notwithstanding the importance of evaluation factors, Cost/Price may control the award decision when: (a) proposals are otherwise considered approximately equal in their non-cost/price factors, (b) an otherwise superior proposal is not offered at a fair and reasonable cost/price, or (c) the advantages of a higher rated, higher cost/price proposal are not considered to be worth the cost/price premium.

Offerors are cautioned that the award may not necessarily be made to the lowest price offered. When the lowest-priced proposal is rated highest on the other evaluation factors, it is the apparent best value. When the lowest- price proposal is not highest rated in the other evaluation factors, the Government shall determine whether the difference in price is worth the difference in the other factors. Award may be made to a technically superior, higher-priced proposal, when it is determined that the technical difference is sufficiently significant to outweigh the price difference. Conversely, an award may be made to a lower-priced proposal, lower technically rated proposal when it is determined that the cost premium involved in selecting a higher-priced proposal, higher rated proposal is not justified.

To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than “Acceptable” must be achieved for Technical and Management, a rating of no less than “Neutral” must be achieved for Past Performance, and Price shall be fair and reasonable. Additionally, based on the OCI Risk Identification Plan information required, if the Offeror fails to submit an OCI plan or if the KO determines that the Offeror has an OCI that cannot be mitigated, then the Offeror may not be eligible for award.

C. FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below. The Government reserves the right to make award based upon the Price factor in the event that the Technical, Management, and Past Performance evaluation results of all the offerors’ proposals are substantially the same.

The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal:

Factor 1: Technical: Evaluation of the offeror’s proposal shall address the Offeror’s Technical approach as it applies to the Performance Work Statement (PWS). A detailed explanation of the criteria for the evaluation is set forth below in the “Evaluation Approach” portion of this section. During evaluation of each proposal, the Government will assign the Technical factor an adjectival rating and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the identified findings.

Factor 2: Management Approach: Evaluation of the offeror’s proposal shall address the Offeror’s overall Management Approach as it applies to the Performance Work Statement (PWS). A detailed explanation of the criteria for the evaluation is set forth below in the “Evaluation Approach” portion of this section. During evaluation of each proposal, the Government will assign the Management Approach factor an adjectival rating and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the identified findings.

Factor 3: Past Performance: Each offeror’s past performance will be reviewed to determine recent and relevancy and confidence assessment.

Factor 4. Price: The resulting award will be a Firm-Fixed Price contract type. Price reasonableness will be utilized in the evaluation of the Firm-Fixed Price effort.

D. EVALUATION APPROACH

All proposals shall be evaluated by the Source Selection Team (SST).

a. The overarching evaluation approach for all factors and subfactors is as follows:

1. Adequacy of Response. The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the offeror’s methods and approach have adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirements specified in the RFP. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which each requirement has been addressed in the proposal in accordance with the proposal submission section of the

RFP.

2. Feasibility of Approach. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the proposed approach is workable and the end results achievable.

The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which successful performance is contingent upon proven devices and techniques. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the offeror is expected to be able to successfully complete the proposed tasks and technical requirements within the required schedule.

b. Factors to be Evaluated:

1. Technical: This factor evaluates the Offeror’s proposed Technical approach, focusing on their in depth knowledge and ability to perform the requirements stated in the PWS. This factor includes the Offeror’s proposed technical capabilities including Key Personnel and Task Leads.

In accordance with the Army Source Selection Supplement (AS3), Section 3.1, the Army methodology for evaluating Technical Approach and Related Risk is the Combined Technical/Risk Rating, (see Table 1 below). This methodology considers risk, in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings.

Definitions:

Strength. An aspect of an Offeror's proposal with merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the advantage of the Government during contract performance.

Weakness. A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

Significant Weakness. A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

TABLE 1 – COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

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 is unawardable, and/or risk of performance is unacceptably high.

Deficiency. 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.

Uncertainty. Any aspect of a non-cost/price factor proposal for which the intent of the offer is unclear (e.g., more than one way to interpret the offer or inconsistencies in the proposal indicating that there may have been an error, omission, or mistake).

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

*Note that a separate “risk rating” will not be assigned, as risk of unsuccessful performance is incorporated into the Combined Technical/Risk Rating definitions.

2. Management Approach: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s overall management approach including proposed organizational chart, plan for transition in/out, proposed use of subcontractors, and potential organizational conflicts of interest mitigation plan. The Offeror’s proposed approach will be rated on an adjectival scale as described in the table below.

3. Past Performance Factor. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s record of past and current performance to ascertain the probability of successfully performing the required efforts of the PWS.

TABLE 2 – Management Approach Ratings

Rating Description Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirement.

Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirement..

Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirement.

Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirement.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirement.

a. The Government will focus its inquiries on the offeror’s record of performance as it relates to all solicitation requirements. A significant achievement, problem, or lack of relevant data in any element of the work can become an important consideration in the evaluation process. Therefore, offerors will be reminded to include the most recent and relevant efforts (within the past five years) in their proposal. Absent any recent and relevant past performance history or when the performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror will be assigned a “neutral confidence rating” and its proposal will not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably on past performance. The Government may use data provided by the offeror in its proposal and data obtained from other sources, including data in Government files or data obtained through interviews with personnel familiar with the contractor and their current and past performance under Federal, State or Local government or commercial contracts for same or similar services as compared to the NAICS 541611.

c. Offerors shall submit a maximum of 3 Government and/or commercial contracts for the prime offeror as a prime contractor or subcontractor in performance or awarded during the past five years, from the issue date of this RFP, which are relevant to the efforts required by this RFP. The Government may consider a wide array of information from a variety of sources but is not compelled to rely on all of the information available.

d. The past performance factor considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract requirements. There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation:

recency, relevancy, and quality.

(i) RECENCY: The first aspect that will be evaluated is the recency of the Offeror’s past performance. Recency is defined as the five (5) preceding calendar years from the date of Solicitation. Only past performance determined to be “Recent” shall be evaluated for “Relevancy”, as provided below.

(ii) RELEVANCY: The second aspect is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. Relevancy is not separately rated; however, the following criteria (see Table

3) will be used to establish what is relevant which shall include similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming.

Table 3 - Past Performance Relevancy Ratings Rating Definition Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation 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.

(iii) QUALITY ASSESSMENT: The third aspect assesses the overall quality of the offeror’s past performance. Documented results from CPARS, and other sources form the support and basis for this assessment. Offerors’ past performance shall only be evaluated for Quality after it has been determined to be both Recent and Relevant, as provided above.

e. Performance Confidence Assessment: The Government will use the Performance Confidence Assessment (see Table 4 below) to determine the confidence level for each Offeror.

TABLE 4 - Performance Confidence Ratings

Rating Definition Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

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

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

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.

Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools in Proposal Evaluation

a. Use of AI tools in Support of Evaluations: The Government may employ AI as a tool to assist in the analysis and review of offeror proposal. AI tools may be used to support tasks such as summarizing proposal content, identifying compliance with request for task order proposal / solicitation requirements, and highlighting areas of potential strength, weakness, or risk.

b. Maintaining Inherently Governmental Functions: Notwithstanding the use of AI tools to support the evaluation process, all final evaluation judgements, including the assignment or assessment of adjectival ratings, best value determinations, and source selection decisions, will be made exclusively by duly appointed Government personnel.

The Government retains sole responsibility for all inherently governmental functions and will not delegate decision making authority to any AI tool.

c. Offeror Confidentiality and Data Protection: The AI tools utilized by the Government will be employed in a manner consistent with applicable regulations that govern the protection of proprietary and source selection sensitive information. The AI tool will be an output-only system. Any generated report data is not saved. No proposal data will be transmitted to or processed by external, non-Government systems without appropriate safeguards and authorizations in place.

d. For this solicitation, AI tools may only be used for Past Performance evaluation.

4. Price Factor.

The total evaluated Price (TEP) to be used in the award determination will be the total of ALL CLINS including options and the Option to Extend Services in accordance with FAR 52.217-8, which is automatically calculated in the provided price proposal model spreadsheet. The evaluation of all option CLINs will not obligate the Government to exercise any option. The proposed price will not be adjectively rated. Each offeror’s proposal will be evaluated for price fairness and reasonableness in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. For a price to be fair and reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business.

Accordingly, the analytical techniques and procedures prescribed in FAR 15.404-1 for evaluating an Offeror’s proposal may be used singly or in combination with others to ensure the proposed costs and prices are fair and reasonable. The level of detail of this analysis will be determined by the contracting officer based on competition and other factors. As this is a commercial, competitive, firm fixed price acquisition, price or cost realism analysis is not required and will not be performed.

The overall Price proposal will be evaluated for the following:

1) Compliance: The Price proposal submitted by the Offeror will be evaluated for compliance based upon the submission requirements contained in the Section L instructions

2) Unbalanced Pricing: The Offeror’s overall Price proposal will be evaluated for unbalanced pricing as defined in FAR 15.404-1(g). An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government (see FAR 15.404-1(g)(1) through FAR 15.404-1(g)(3)).

3) Errors: The Offeror’s Cost/Price proposal will be reviewed for errors. The Offeror may be given an opportunity to clarify certain aspects of their proposal at the sole discretion of the Contracting Officer.

4) Business Systems: The Government will verify the adequacy of the

Offeror’s business systems.

5) Total Evaluated Price: The Total Evaluated Price (TEP) to be used in the award determination will be the total of ALL CLINS including options and the Option to Extend Services in accordance with FAR 52.217-8, which is automatically calculated in the provided price proposal model spreadsheet.

E. DISCUSSIONS

The Government may evaluate proposals and award without discussions. Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint.

However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions, if later determined by the Contracting Officer to be necessary. In accordance with FAR 15.306(d), discussion sessions with each offeror may be held. Should discussions take place, all offerors in the competitive range will be allowed a minimum of 14 calendar days to submit Final Proposal Revisions. If discussions are conducted, the Contracting Officer will schedule the discussion sessions