Attachment__5_RFIMS_Sections_L&M.pdf

RADIO FREQUENCY INTERFERENCE MONITORING SYSTEM (RFIMS)

SECTIONS L&M, AMENDMENT A001

L.1. 52.252-1 -- SOLICITATION PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE (FEB 1998)

This solicitation incorporates one or more solicitation provisions by reference, with the same force and effect as if they were given in full text. The offeror is cautioned that the listed provisions may include blocks that must be completed by the offeror and submitted with its quotation or offer. In lieu of submitting the full text of those provisions, the offeror may identify the provision by paragraph identifier and provide the appropriate information with its quotation or offer. Also, the full text of a solicitation provision may be accessed electronically at this/these address(es):

https://acquisition.gov/far/index.html http://farsite.hill.af.mil/vffara.htm

Provision incorporated by Reference

52.204-6 Unique Entity Identifier (Oct 2016)

52.204-7 System for Award Management (Oct 2016)

52.204-18 Commercial and Government Entity Code Maintenance (Jul 2016)

52.215-1 Instructions to Offerors – Competitive (Jan 2004)

52.215-1 Instructions to Offerors – Competitive (Alternate I) (Jan 2004)

52.215-16 Facilities Capital Cost of Money (Jun 2003)

52.215-20 Requirements for Certified Cost or Pricing Data and Data Other Than Certified Cost or Pricing Data (Oct 2010)

52.215-22 Limitations on Pass-Through Charges—Identification of Subcontract Effort (2009)

52.222-24 Pre-award On-Site Equal Opportunity Compliance Evaluation (Feb 1999)

52.222-60 Paycheck Transparency (Oct 2016)

52.222-61 Arbitration of Contractor Employee Claims (Executive Order 13673) (Dec 2016)

L.2. 52.216-1 -- TYPE OF CONTRACT (APR 1984)

The Government contemplates award of a Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) completion type contract resulting from this solicitation.

(End of provision)

L.3. 52.233-2 – SERVICE OF PROTEST (SEP 2006)

(a) Protests, as defined in section 33.101 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation, that are filed directly with an agency, and copies of any protests that are filed with the Government Accountability Office (GAO), shall be served on the

Contracting Officer (addressed as follows) by obtaining written and dated acknowledgment of receipt from:

Michael Blumenfeld Contracting Officer

Satellite and Information Acquisition Division (SIAD)

U.S. Department of Commerce/NOAA

1325 East-West Highway SOU6, 11 th

Floor

Silver Spring Metro Center Building 2 (SSMC2)

Silver Spring, MD 20910

Michael.blumenfeld@noaa.gov

(b) The copy of any protest shall be received in the office designated above within one day of filing a protest with the GAO.

(End of Provision)

L.4. 1352.215-72 -- INQUIRIES (APR 2010)

Offerors must submit all questions concerning this solicitation by e-mail to Michael Blumenfeld, Contracting Officer E-mail:

michael.blumenfeld@noaa.gov, CC: Scott DeLoera, Contracting Specialist E-mail: scott.deloera@noaa.gov.

Questions should be received no later than ten (10) calendar days after the issuance date of this solicitation. Any responses to questions will be made in writing, without identification of the questioner, and will be included in an amendment to the solicitation. Even if provided in other form, only the question responses included in the amendment to the solicitation will govern performance of the contract.

https://acquisition.gov/far/index.html http://farsite.hill.af.mil/vffara.htm mailto:michael.blumenfeld@noaa.gov mailto:scott.deloera@noaa.gov

NOAA Simulation Test Data is available to interested offerors that request access to it. In order to obtain access to the NOAA

Simulation Test Data, offerors shall email their request to both of the email addresses listed above no later than ten (10) calendar days prior to the proposal due date.

L.5. 1352.233-70 -- AGENCY PROTESTS (APR 2010)

(a) An agency protest may be filed with either:

(1) the contracting officer, or

(2) at a level above the contracting officer, with the appropriate agency Protest Decision Authority. See 64 Fed.

Reg. 16,651 (April 6, 1999)

(3) Agency protests filed with the Contracting Officer shall be sent to the following address:

Michael Blumenfeld Contracting Officer, NESDIS

Satellite and Information Acquisition Division (SIAD)

U.S. Department of Commerce/NOAA 1325 East-West Highway SOU6, 11th Floor

Silver Spring Metro Center Building 2 (SSMC2) Silver Spring, MD 20910

Office (301) 628-1349

Cell (240) 997-4426

Agency protests filed with the agency Protest Decision Authority shall be sent to the following address:

Senior Procurement Executive

U.S. Department of Commerce Office of Acquisition Management

1401 Constitution Ave NW, Room 6422

Washington, DC 20230

(a) A complete copy of all agency protests, including all attachments, shall be served upon the Contract Law

Division of the Office of the General Counsel within one day of filing a protest with either the Contracting

Officer or the Protest Decision Authority.

(b) Service upon the Contract Law Division shall be made as follows:

U.S. Department of Commerce Office of the General Counsel Chief, Contract Law Division Room

5893 Herbert C. Hoover Building

14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C.

20230 FAX: (202) 482-5858

L.6. 1352.233-71 -- GAO AND COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS PROTESTS (APR 2010)

(a) A protest may be filed with either the Government Accountability Office (GAO) or the Court of Federal Claims unless an agency protest has been filed.

(b) A complete copy of all GAO or Court of Federal Claims protests, including all attachments, shall be served upon (i) the Contracting Officer, and (ii) the Contract Law Division of the Office of the General Counsel, within one day of filing a protest with either GAO or the Court of Federal Claims.

(c) Service upon the Contract Law Division shall be made as follows:

U.S. Department of Commerce

Office of the General Counsel

Chief, Contract Law Division

Room 5893

Herbert C. Hoover Building

14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20230

FAX: (202) 482-5858

L.7. 1352.215-70 -- PROPOSAL PREPARATION (APR 2010)

(a) General Instructions. Proposals are expected to conform to solicitation provisions and be prepared in accordance with this section. To aid in evaluation, the proposal shall be clearly and concisely written, neatly presented, indexed

(cross- indexed as appropriate), and logically assembled. Proposals shall only address the source selection criteria and be free of extraneous, irrelevant or unnecessary information including the use of marketing/presentation materials.

All pages of each part shall be appropriately numbered and identified with the name of the offeror, the date of the offer, and the solicitation number. Each volume shall be clearly marked by volume number and title.

(b) Overall Arrangement of Proposal.

(1) VOLUME I--BUSINESS PROPOSAL (No page limitation)

(i) Volume I, Business Proposal, consists of the actual offer to enter into a contract to perform the desired work. It also includes required representations, certifications, and acknowledgments, if applicable;

justifications for noncompetitive proposed subcontracts; subcontracting plans; identification of technical data to be withheld; and any other required administrative information.

(ii) Format and Content. Volume I, Business Proposal, shall include the following documents (in the order listed):

(A) Proposal Form:

(1) Use of the Form--The Proposal Form (Standard Form 33), is to be executed fully and used as the cover sheet (or first page) of Volume I.

(2) Acceptance Period--The acceptance period entered on the Proposal Form by the offeror shall not be less than that prescribed in the solicitation, which shall apply if no other period is offered.

(3) Signature Authority--The person signing the Proposal Form must have the authority to commit the offeror to all of the provisions of the proposal, fully recognizing that the Government has the right, by terms of the Solicitation, to make an award without discussion if it so elects.

(B) Other documentation identified in Section (i) above. The offeror shall submit one (1) electronic copy of Volume I via email, marked as such.

(2) VOLUME II--TECHNICAL PROPOSAL (No more than 125 pages)

(i) General.

(A) Volume II, technical proposal, consists of the offeror's proposal delineating its capabilities and how it intends to perform contract requirements. The Technical proposal will be evaluated in accordance with the criteria contained in Section M. The offeror shall submit one (1) electronic copy via email of Volume II, marked as such.

(B) In order that the technical proposal may be evaluated strictly on the merit of the material submitted, no contractual price information is to be included in Volume II. However, the type and quantity of labor and materials is to be included in the Technical Proposal, without any associated cost information.

(C) The technical proposal must be typed, single-spaced, with one inch margins, using Times New

Roman 12 point f o n t, unreduced in size, on 8.5” X 11” paper, not exceeding 125 pages, single-sided. Graphs, charts and/or tables are not subject to the font limitations listed above. The page limit applies to the Technical Proposal, Volume

II. The page limitations are inclusive of charts and graphics, but excludes the table of contents, lists of tables and figures, exceptions and deviations, acronym lists, cross-reference matrices, the Integrated Management Plan (IMP), the Integrated

Master Schedule (IMS), the Performance Work Statement (PWS) and the Quality Control Plan (QCP). Any pages in excess of 125 pages will be disregarded, and will not be included in the proposal evaluation. Failure of the offeror to comply with the page limitations, resulting in the excess pages not being evaluated, shall not constitute grounds for a protest.

(ii) Format and Content. Volume II, Technical Proposal, shall include the following contents:

(A) Table of Contents

(B) List of Tables and Figures

(C) Summary of Technical Proposal

(D) Technical Proposal

(E) Exceptions and Deviations. This section shall identify and explain any exceptions or deviations taken to any part of the solicitation or conditional assumptions made with respect to the technical requirements of the solicitation. Offerors should note that taking exceptions to the Government's requirements may indicate an unwillingness or inability to perform the contract, and the proposal may be evaluated as such.

These major headings may be subdivided or supplemented by the offeror as appropriate.

(iii) Specific areas to be addressed:

Technical Approach: The purpose of evaluating Technical Approach is to assess the Offeror’s proposed approach, as detailed in its proposal, to satisfy the Government’s requirement. The approach must outline and address technical challenges inherent in the approach and present possible solutions for overcoming potential problems and manage/mitigate the inherent technical risks. This section should provide appropriate measurable milestones (quantitative if possible) at intermediate stages of the program to demonstrate progress, and a plan for achieving the milestones. The technical approach should demonstrate a deep understanding of the technical challenges and present a credible plan to achieve the project objectives.

The Offeror’s proposal shall provide a Technical Approach to demonstrate that they possess the technical capability to satisfy all the “objectives” presented in the SOO in the timeframe reflected in the Period of

Performance. Offerors may submit proposals that offer a condensed period of performance than those currently provided. The technical response will include the Offerors’ proposed Performance Work

Statement (PWS) in response to the SOO. The response shall provide the detailed Technical Approach the Offeror intends to use during contract performance. It should clearly articulate “how” the Offeror will accomplish the proposed work efforts detailed in their Technical Approach throughout each phase of the project. The Technical Approach should clearly demonstrate that the Offeror possesses the in-depth organizational knowledge, experience, and technical understanding of the work requirements necessary to satisfy the scope, magnitude and complexity of the technical effort required by the SOO. It must recognize the technical challenges and inherent risk factors and present solutions for overcoming problems and managing/mitigating risk.

The response will identify the systems, processes, procedures, equipment, tools, software/hardware, and machines used to document research findings, develop prototypes, perform testing, and qualify and produce systems in sufficient quantities to satisfy deployment requirements. The Technical Approach must clearly identify and demonstrate, in sufficient detail, the resources, processes, tools, methodologies and procedures the Offeror will use, and exactly how they will be used to deliver the solution required by the SOO in a timely manner at the required quality and quantity levels. The Offeror’s response must identify the current state of the technologies, and associated Technology Readiness Levels (TRL), for the components and/or systems identified for the proposed technical solution. It must explain exactly how the technology and its

TRL acts to mitigate technical risks as part of their overarching risk mitigation strategy which must be presented in detail.

The proposal must present measurable milestones (quantitative if possible) and proposed schedules at intermediate stages of the program to demonstrate progress, and a plan for achieving the milestones to ensure the Period of Performance is strictly adhered-to. The proposal shall provide a detailed schedule showing tasks (task name, duration, work breakdown structure element as applicable, performing organization), milestones, and the interrelationships among tasks. The task structure must be consistent with that required to support the effort required by the SOO. Measurable milestones should be clearly articulated and defined in time relative to the start of the project.

The Offeror’s response shall include a Quality Control Plan (QCP) they intend to use throughout the period of performance and how this plan will be implemented and maintained throughout the POP to manage risk and produce systems that meet the intended performance outcomes reflected in the SOO. The QCP shall clearly identify and outline the control objectives, processes, procedures, metrics and measures that will be used and reported throughout each phase of development and deployment to ensure performance standards are consistently achieved to produce timely products, data deliverables, and services according to the requirements of the SOO and achieve the standards established in the QASP. The technical plan should demonstrate a deep understanding of the technical challenges and present a credible plan to achieve the project objectives.

The offeror's proposal shall include a management plan delineating its management capabilities and how it intends to transition throughout the three phases and successfully perform the contract requirements.

The Offeror’s proposal shall present clear and convincing evidence that they possess the corporate capability and core corporate competencies directly aligned with developing technical solutions required by the SOO by identifying their management capabilities (management and quality processes, facilities, equipment, tools, personnel, etc.). The Offeror shall identify the status of any International Standards Organization

(ISO) 9000 certification obtained as well as any Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) appraisal-level to include identification of the certifying and appraising organizations. Describe organizational experience in relevant subject area(s), existing intellectual property, specialized facilities, and any

Government furnished material or information requirements.

The proposal shall present the management plan and processes used for managing the contract to ensure compliance with the performance objectives of the SOO, contract terms and conditions, and managing cost and schedule performance under a cost-reimbursement type contract. It shall address the Offeror’s approach toward ensuring the efficient and effective utilization of resources to ensure there are no cost overruns incurred during performance. It should address the processes used in the selection and management of subcontractors. The proposal must present an organizational chart that details the roles, responsibilities, and authorities of the assigned team members.

The proposal shall provide a summary of expertise of the team, including any subcontractors or key personnel who will be doing the work. The approach should detail lines of communication, the process by which problem areas are resolved, and how daily operations will be coordinated with the Government customer. The Offeror’s response shall address communications management by detailing the types of communications, purpose, frequency, delivery method and recipients. The proposal shall present the contractor’s Integrated Master Plan (IMP) and Integrated Master Schedule (IMS). The IMP should represent an event-driven plan that documents the significant accomplishments necessary to complete the work efforts and tying each accomplishment to a key program event or phase. The IMP should be expanded to a time-based IMS reflecting a multi-layered schedule showing all detailed tasks required to accomplish the work effort contained in the IMP. The IMP and IMS should serve as the foundation for the Earned Value

Management System (EVMS) to be used under this program. Discuss how the Offeror’s EVMS meets or has the capability to meet the guidelines in ANSI/EIA Standard—748.

(3) VOLUME III—PAST PERFORMANCE (No more than 8 pages)

(i) General.

(A) Volume III, Past Performance, consists of the offeror's relevant past performance on similar contracts. The past performance volume will be evaluated in accordance with the criteria contained in Section M. The offeror shall submit one (1) electronic copy of Volume III via email, marked as such.

(B) The past performance volume must be typed, single-spaced, with one inch margins, using Times New Roman

12 point font, unreduced in size, on 8.5” X 11” paper, single-sided.

(ii) Format and Content. Volume III, Past Performance, shall include the following contents. These major headings may be subdivided or supplemented by the offeror as appropriate.

(A) Table of Contents

(B) List of Tables and Figures

(C) Summary of Past Performance

(D) Past Performance Information

(iii) Specific areas to be addressed:

Past Performance

The Offeror shall document their past performance on “recent” and “relevant” projects/contracts by completing the template provided at Table 1. Relevant is defined as work efforts that are essentially of the same scope, magnitude, and complexity of that required by the SOO. The relevance of an Offeror’s past performance will be measured based on the similarity in scope, magnitude, and complexity of work, dollar value, and contract type. The references provided shall be “recent”. Recent is defined as work in process, or that was completed during the past three (3) years. If submissions of previous efforts required subcontracting plan goals, please submit them with your past performance. The offeror shall use Table 1 below as a template to provide information for up-to four (4) references, not to exceed two (2) pages each. Note: if subcontractors are proposed, two (2) of the four (4) references provided must be of work performed by the prime offeror. Table 1: Past Performance Reference

Information Sheet

(4) VOLUME IV—COST PROPOSAL (No page limitation)

Past Performance (PP) Reference Information Sheet

[Offeror Name] [DUNS] [PP Reference (i.e., #1, 2, or 3)]

1. Customer Agency/Organization:

2. Customer Address:

3. Contract Number:

Contract Type:

4. Offeror: ( ) Prime or

Subcontractor

5. Date of Award: 6. Award Amount:

7. Current/Final Amount: $ 8. Period of Performance:

9. Place of Performance: 10. Contract Status:

( ) Completed ( )

Ongoing/Continuing

11. Contracting Officer (PCO) Name:

12. PCO Phone: 13. PCO Email:

14. Technical POC (TPOC) Name:

15. TPOC Phone: 16: TPOC Email:

16. Name of Effort and General Description of the Work Performed

17. Correlation with Requirements of RFIMS SOO

17a. Scope:

17b. Complexity:

17c. Magnitude:

18. Major Deliverables:

19. Identification of Problem Areas and the Effectiveness of Corrective Action

Measures:

The offeror shall submit one (1) electronic copy of Volume IV via email, marked as such.

Although cost is the least important evaluation factor for award, the degree of importance of the Offeror’s total proposed cost is anticipated to increase with the degree of equality of the proposals, when evaluated for the other non-cost factors.

Offerors will be asked to propose a total estimated cost for each contract period as well as their proposed fixed fee. Each contract period is aligned with the development phases identified in the SOO. Offerors shall provide a level of granularity that includes an estimated cost for each individual location as identified in

Section B. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total estimated cost for all options periods to the total estimated costs for the base period, inclusive of fee. Proposed costs will be evaluated for reasonableness and realism. Proposed fees may be evaluated using a weighted guidelines approach to ensure compliance with statutory limitations listed in FAR 15.404-4(c)(4)(i). The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option period prices are significantly unbalanced.

Offeror's are advised that for the purpose of developing their cost proposal relative to the Development and

Installation Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs) 2001-2004, that they should assume that the site conditions of all identified NOAA earth ground station locations are representative to the conditions documented under

Government Furnished Information (GFI) Environmental Site Survey Reports ATR_2016_01708 dated

August 2016 and 2016_ITS_Spectrum_Survey_in_Miami_and_Suitland. All offeror's should use this information as a baseline for proposal preparation purposes.

The offeror must also submit the following detailed information to support its proposed costs, as applicable:

Direct Labor: Breakdown of direct labor cost by named person or labor category. Indicate fringe benefit rate, if separate from indirect cost rate.

Other Direct Costs: Specify the amount proposed for duplication/reproduction, meetings and conferences, postage, communication and any other applicable items.

Materials: Cost breakdown of materials or equipment must be supported with the methodology used and vendor quotations supplied as applicable.

Consultants: If consultants are proposed, state the total estimated price of the services to be required and the consultant's quoted daily or hourly rate. Include Consulting Agreements entered into between consultant(s) and the offeror, or invoices submitted by consultant(s) for similar services previously provided to the offeror.

Subcontracts: If proposed, cost information for each subcontractor shall be furnished in the same format and level of detail as prescribed for the prime offeror. Proprietary cost information, such as indirect rates or Total Compensation Plans, may be submitted directly from the subcontractor to the government.

Additionally, in relation to such subcontracts, the offeror shall submit the following information:

(1) description of the items to be furnished by the subcontractor;

(2) Identification of the proposed subcontractor and an explanation of why and how the proposed subcontractor was selected, including the extent of competition;

(3) The proposed subcontract price and cost detail and performance/delivery schedule; and

(4) Identification of the type of subcontract to be used.

Indirect Rates: Offerors lacking Government-approved indirect cost rates must provide detailed background data indicating the cost elements included in the applicable pool and a statement that such treatment is in accordance with the company's established accounting practice. Offerors with established rate agreements with cognizant Federal agencies shall submit one copy of such agreements.

Fixed-Fee: Specify the fixed-fee proposed and the rationale justifying the amount of fixed fee.

L.8. ELECTRONICPROPOSALS

Electronic (e-mailed) proposals are required. Electronic proposals must contain all requested information to meet the minimum criteria for a complete response and must be in a software format compatible with those used at NOAA’s Satellite and Information Acquisition Division (see Submission of Proposals below). The email address to which proposals must be sent is: Michael.blumenfeld@noaa.gov and cc: scott.deloera@noaa.gov.

The Government will not be responsible for any failure attributable to the transmission or receipt of emails, including the failure to meet stated deadlines. It is the Offeror’s responsibility to confirm the Government’s receipt of all transmitted information. Each individual email must not exceed the 25MB limit for attachments. Offerors shall confirm receipt with the

Government to ensure all intended attachments were properly received.

Text and graphics portions of the electronic copies shall be in a format readable by Microsoft Word 2007. Data submitted in spreadsheet format shall be readable by MS Excel 2007.

(a) By submission of a proposal on electronic media, the offeror must ensure that the submission is readable, in the format specified in the solicitation, and has been verified as free of computer viruses. Prior to any evaluation, the Government will check all files for viruses and ensure that all information is readable. In the event that any files are defective (unreadable), the

Government may only evaluate the readable electronic files. Further, if defective (unreadable) media renders a significant deficiency in the offeror's proposal, the Government may consider the proposal incomplete and not consider such proposals for further evaluation.

(b) The offeror must ensure that:

(1) The electronic and paper copies of its proposal submitted in response to the solicitation are identical;

(2) It has verified that its electronic proposal is readable on the hardware and software operating system format specified below:

Microsoft word or Adobe PDF

(3) It has verified that the electronic proposals are free of computer viruses using standard commercial anti-virus software.

(c) A proposal that fails to conform to the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) above may be subject to interception or delay at Governmental electronic communications portals. This interception or delay may result in the proposal being lost, deleted, destroyed, or forwarded in such a manner that the proposal arrives at the target destination past the time and date of the deadline for submission established in the solicitation. In the event that a proposal is lost, deleted, or destroyed due to the offeror's failure to conform to the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) above, such proposal will be considered to have never been delivered to the Government. In the event that a proposal is delayed due to the offeror's failure to conform to the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) above, the proposal will be treated as late in accordance with FAR 52.215-1.

L.9. SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS

Offerors are responsible for submitting proposals, and any revisions, so as to reach the designated Government office by

12:00pm EST, April 17, 2017. Any package not marked or incorrectly marked for identification as a proposal and consequently delivered late will not be considered for award.

L.10. TIME OF RECEIPT

For the purposes of establishing the official time of receipt of offers, Offerors are to note that the proposal submission must be received by the contracting office by the time set for close of receipt of offers. This information is presented for Offerors' planning purposes only and does not constitute an alternate deadline for receipt.

L.11. FACSIMILE PROPOSALS AND/OR REVISIONS

Facsimile proposals are not authorized.

L.12. NOTICE OF PARTICIPATION OF NON-GOVERNMENT PERSONNEL

(a) The Contractor is advised that the Government may utilize the outside Contractors and/or Consultants listed below to assist in the administration of this contract. These Contractors/Consultants will have access to any and all information submitted by contractor and will be subject to the restrictions contained in CAR Clauses 1352.209-71

Limitation of Future Contracting, 1352.209-72 Restrictions Against Disclosure, 1352.209-74 Organizational

Conflict of Interest and FAR Clause 52.203-16 Preventing Personal Conflicts of Interest. The companies/organizations employing the subject Contractors/Consultants are also required to comply with these same confidentiality restrictions. All federal and non-federal personnel supporting the government in the administration of this contract will have executed Non-Disclosure Agreements. The Contractor is advised that the

Government may utilize the assistance of the outside Contractors and/or Consultants listed below to assist in the evaluations of proposals as non-voting subject matter experts.

(1) Veteran’s Management Services, Inc. (VMSI)

(2) EMCS, LLC.

(3) Noblis

(4) Changeis, Inc.

(5) Pinnacle

(6) ManTech Advanced Systems International, Inc.

(7) Aerospace Corporation

- END OF SECTION L -

M.1. 1352.215-75 -- EVALUATION CRITERIA (APR 2010)

This is a competitive requirement. It is anticipated that award will be made to the offer that conforms to the solicitation requirements, is judged by an integrated assessment of price and other evaluation factors listed in this

SECTION M to represent the best value to the Government, and to an offeror who is determined responsible in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) by possessing the financial and other capabilities to fulfill the requirements of the contract.

The Government may consider multiple awards result ing from this solicitation but reserves the right to award only one. The Government also reserves the right to not make an award resulting from this solicitation if funding is not available or the requirement is no longer needed. The Government reserves the right to make an award without discussions based solely upon initial proposals. Therefore, the Offeror should ensure that their initial proposal constitutes their best offer in terms of both price and the technical solution being proposed.

Non-price (technical) evaluation factors will be adjectively rated.

Proposal evaluations will be based on the Best Value Tradeoff Process pursuant to FAR 15.101-1. The Best Value

Tradeoff Process is based on three (3) factors: Technical Approach, Past Performance and Cost. The non-price technical factors will include Technical Approach and Past Performance, in descending order of importance. Technical

Approach is more important than Past Performance and when combined, the two non-price factors of Technical

Approach and Past Performance are considered to be significantly more important than Cost/Price.

(a) Non-cost factors. The non-cost technical factors include Technical Approach and Past Performance.

(1) Technical Approach

The purpose of evaluating Technical Approach is to assess the offeror’s proposed approach, as detailed in its proposal, to satisfy the Government’s requirement. The Government will make award to the responsible Offeror whose proposal and price/costs represents the Best Value to the Government. Proposal evaluations and award will be based on the Best Value

Tradeoff Process pursuant to FAR 15.101-1.

The technical approach will be evaluated and rated based on information contained in the technical proposal in an integrated manner taking into consideration all of the following:

Proposals will be evaluated to the degree to which the Offeror has addressed all the requirements stated for Technical

Approach and the risk associated with that approach. Evaluations will assess the detail, supportability, and soundness of approach demonstrating the Offeror has the depth and breadth in technical capability, organizational knowledge and core corporate competencies necessary to execute all elements of the RFIMS SOO in the timeframe reflected in the Period of

Performance (POP) for each Contract Line Item Number (CLIN). Additionally, the quality, completeness, soundness, compliance and overall credibility of the Offerors’ proposed PWS in response to the SOO, including the proposed QASP criteria will be evaluated.

Evaluations will determine the degree to which the Offeror demonstrates they possess experience applying the required resources, processes, tools and techniques necessary to support project requirements of the scope, magnitude and complexity that that provided for in the RFIMS SOO. The approach will be evaluated for clarity, conciseness, and that it represents a logical and executable methodology by clearly identifying the systems, processes, procedures, equipment, tools and machines and how these will be used to produce the objectives and requirements reflected in the RFIMS SOO. Proposals will be evaluated to the degree to which the Offeror’s response accurately identifies the technical challenges and inherent risk factors, while presenting credible solutions to manage technical problems and risk.

The sufficiency of systems, processes, procedures, equipment, tools, software/hardware, and machines used to document research findings, develop prototypes, perform testing, and qualify and produce systems in sufficient quantities to satisfy deployment requirements will be evaluated. The current state of the proposed technologies, and associated Technology

Readiness Levels (TRL) will be evaluated to determine the degree of effectiveness in mitigating technical risks to ensure project schedules are achieved in a timely fashion.

The level of detail provided as part of the Offeror’s proposed overarching risk mitigation strategy will be evaluated for adequacy and perceived effectiveness. Proposed project plan and milestones will be evaluated to determine if they are logical and achievable to ensure the POP is strictly adhered-to. The proposed schedule showing tasks (task name, duration, work breakdown structure element as applicable, performing organization), milestones, and the interrelationships among tasks will be evaluated to determine if they are consistent with the effort required by the RFIMS SOO.

The overall adequacy of the Offeror’s Quality Control Plan (QCP) will be evaluated to ensure it can be used to manage risk and produce systems that meet the intended performance outcomes reflected in the RFIMS SOO as well as achieve the standards established in the PWS.

Proposals will be evaluated to determine if they present clear and convincing evidence they possess the corporate capability and core corporate competencies directly aligned with developing technical solutions required by the SOO by identifying their management capabilities (management and quality processes, facilities, equipment, tools, personnel, etc.). The Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated to determine organizational quality standardization and maturity based on the status of their ISO

9000 certification and CMMI-DEV appraisal. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the degree to which these achievements are beneficial to the Government, may act to positively influence the performance outcomes required by the

SOO, and achieve the appropriate quality levels while ensuring related development and deployment schedules are strictly adhered-to. Additionally, the offeror’s organizational experience will be evaluated to determine the degree to which it is obtained in relevant subject area(s), and will determine the adequacy of existing intellectual property, specialized facilities, and to what degree Government furnished material or information must be relied upon to facilitate successful performance.

Proposals will be evaluated on the adequacy of the proposed management plan and the influence the processes identified for managing the contract should act to ensure compliance with the performance objectives of the SOO, contract terms and conditions, and managing cost and schedule performance under a cost-reimbursement type contract as well as the overall effectiveness the Offeror’s approach toward ensuring the efficient and effective utilization of resources and how this should contribute in ensuring there are no cost overruns incurred during performance.

The adequacy of the processes used in the selection and management of subcontractors and the degree to which the Offeror’s organizational chart clearly and succinctly details the roles, responsibilities, and authorities of the assigned team members will be evaluated along with the quality of expertise of the team, including any subcontractors, and key personnel who will be doing the work.

Proposals will be evaluated on the adequacy and clarity of lines of communication, the process by which problem areas are resolved, and how effectively daily operations will be coordinated with the Government customer. Also, the proposed communications management approach and if the types of communications, purpose, frequency, delivery method and recipients proposed will be evaluated to determine the effectiveness in resolving problems and fostering effective communications amongst all parties involved.

The detail of the proposed IMP will be evaluated to determine its feasibility and effectiveness as a management tool to facilitate achieving the events and significant accomplishments necessary to complete the work efforts by tying each accomplishment to a key program event or phase and that it effectively integrates an IMS reflecting a multi-layered schedule showing all detailed tasks required to accomplish the work effort contained in the IMP.

The status of the Offeror’s EVMS will be evaluated to ascertain that it meets or has the capability to meet the guidelines in

ANSI/EIA Standard—748.

(2) Past Performance

The purpose of evaluating Past Performance is to assess the degree of confidence the Government has in an offeror’s ability to supply products and services that meet the Government’s needs, based on a demonstrated record of performance. The offeror’s past performance on similar contracts will be evaluated to determine the probability of successful performance of contract requirements, quality and timeliness of delivery of services, effective management of subcontractors, cost management, level of communication between the contracting parties, proactive management, and customer satisfaction. Offerors without relevant past performance will be given a “Neutral” rating.

The integrated past performance assessment will be performed as follows:

Step 1 – Determine if the past performance is recent. Past performance references that are not recent may not be considered.

Step 2 – Determine the degree to which the past performance is relevant based on the contract information provided for the Past Performance Reference Information Sheets. The relevancy is then rated.

Step 3 – Determine the degree to which the offeror has complied to past Subcontracting Plans per FAR 19.702(a)(1),

19.704 and FAR clause 52.219-9. Past performance evaluators will accomplish this by contacting the previous Contracting

Officer(s) for verification.

Step 4 – Obtain a reference assessment to rate the recent and relevant past performance references based on Table 2, criteria below.

Step 5 – Based on these results, the source selection performs and integrated assessment which results in an overall

Performance Confidence Rating which is then assigned to the Offeror’s past performance. The confidence assessment determines the probability of successful performance of key indicators such as contract requirements, quality and timeliness, effective management of subcontractors, cost management, level of communication between the contracting parties, proactive management and customer satisfaction.

The evaluation will also consider information contained in government systems such as, but not limited to, the Past

Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) and Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) to evaluate Past Performance, as well as the agency’s knowledge of contractor performance, other Government agencies, commercial entities, and any other sources available to the Government.

Recency Assessment: An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing, or must have been completed during the past three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition may not be evaluated.

Relevancy Assessment: Evaluators will contact references, and will compare the content of the Past Performance

Reference Information Sheet responses in direct relationship to the requirements of the SOO to make a “relevancy” determination. More relevant past performance will have more influence on the past performance assessment than past performance of lesser relevance. A relevancy determination of the Offeror’s past performance will be made based upon these considerations, based on Table 2 criteria. In determining the relevance of the effort performed under the individual past performance references, the Government will only consider the specific effort or portion consistent with that proposed by the prime, subcontractor, or teaming partner that is directly relevant to the effort required by the SOO.

Performance Confidence Rating: The final Past Performance evaluation is an integrated assessment of recency, relevancy, and reference assessment that considers the Offeror’s demonstrated track record of performance in providing products and services that meet users’ needs and ensures customer satisfaction. Performance Confidence is assessed at the overall Past

Performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the Offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the SOO requirements, and evaluating the past performance results obtained from references and/or PPIRS.

This integrated assessment results in an overall Performance Confidence Rating, which considers the Offeror’s ability to perform successfully under the contract and the Government’s risk assumption associated with award to that contractor.

More relevant performance with higher performance ratings will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence

Rating than less relevant efforts with lower ratings. A strong record of relevant past performance is considered more advantageous to the Government than a “Neutral” rating. Likewise, a more relevant performance record may receive a higher confidence rating, and may be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of past performance.

(b) Cost/Price Evaluation.

(1) The proposed prices/costs will be evaluated but not scored. The cost evaluation will determine whether the proposed costs are realistic, complete, and reasonable in relation to the solicitation requirements. Proposed costs must be entirely compatible with the technical proposal.

(2) Although cost is the least important evaluation factor for award, the degree of importance of the offeror’s total proposed cost is anticipated to increase with the degree of equality of the proposals, when evaluated for other factors.

(3) The Government reserves the right to conduct a cost/price realism analysis and adjust the offeror's proposal to a most probable cost to the Government. The analysis may include information from a government auditing agency, Government technical personnel, and other sources.

(4) Clause 52.217-8 Option to Extend Services will be evaluated by using the prices offered for the last

Operations, Sustainment and Maintenance option period to determine the price for a 6-month option period, which will be added to the base and other option years to arrive at the total price..

Table 1. Adjectival Rating Table for Technical Approach

Adjectival Rating Definition

Outstanding

Proposal meets requirements and demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and offers many significant strengths that exceed the requirements and are highly beneficial to the Government.

Strengths significantly outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Good

Proposal meets requirements and demonstrates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains some significant strengths that are highly beneficial to the Government. Strengths outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Acceptable

Proposal meets requirements and demonstrates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal offers some strength that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting, or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Marginal

Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal contains a combination of significant weaknesses and/or a deficiency that could be made acceptable through negotiation. Risk of unsuccessful performance is moderate to high.

Unacceptable Proposal fails to meet requirements and contains multiple significant weaknesses and/or deficiencies. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very high. Proposals with unacceptable ratings are not eligible for contract award.

Table 2. Adjectival rating Table for Past Performance

Adjectival Rating Definition

Outstanding

Based on the relevancy and quality of the offeror’s past performance information, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Acceptable information, the Government has a reasonably positive expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Marginal information, the Government has a lower expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Unacceptable information, the Government has a very low expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral

No relevant past performance information is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that a past performance rating cannot be assigned.

Table 3. Definition of Strengths, Weaknesses and Deficiencies

Term Definition

Significant Strength

A proposed method or technique in the proposal that has a high magnitude of value to the Government and appreciably increases the likelihood of successful contractperformance.

Strength A proposed method or technique in the proposal that is of value to the

Government and increases the likelihood of successful contract performance.

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

Significant Weakness A flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

M.2. 52.217-5 -- EVALUATION OF OPTIONS (JULY 1990)

Except when it is determined in accordance with FAR 17.206(b) not to be in the Government’s best interests, the Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement.

Evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s). This includes options under FAR clause

52.217-8, Option to Extend Services, which applies to this solicitation. Evaluation of options under FAR 52.217-8 will be accomplished by using the prices offered for the last Operations, Sustainment and Maintenance option period to determine the price for a 6-month option period, which will be added to the base and other option years to arrive at the total price.

M.3. AWARD BASIS

The award will be made on a best value basis. The Government retains the right to award a contract on the basis of the original submissions without discussions or call for final proposal revisions.

- END OF SECTION M -

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.