TCG_Database_System_Support_Section_M_Final.pdf

TCG Database System Support – Section M January 17, 2024

Section M Page 1 of 6

Section Content

1. Source Selection

2. Evaluation Factors

3. Volume I – Executive Summary/Solicitation

4. Volume II – Price

5. Volume III – Technical

6. Pre-award Survey

1 Source Selection

1.1 Basis for Contract Award

This acquisition will utilize Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection procedures in accordance with (IAW) FAR 15.101- 2, and 15.3 as supplemented. Technical tradeoffs will not be made and no additional credit will be given for exceeding technical acceptability. Past Performance will not be evaluated. Award will be made to the Offeror(s) deemed responsible in accordance with FAR 9.1, whose proposal is the lowest priced, technically acceptable, and conforms to all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications and other information required.

1.2 Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as factors or sub-factors.

Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in an Offeror being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions unacceptable.

1.3 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award one (1) Firm Fixed Price (FFP) contract to provide services to support Foreign Military Sales (FMS) Technical Coordination Group (TCG) Database System Support.

However, the Government reserves the right to award no contract at all, if the Source Selection Authority (SSA) determines it is in the Government’s best interest. If the Government determines not to award a contract, the Government is not liable for any costs incurred.

1.4 Rejection of Offers

The Government may reject any proposals that DO NOT conform to the instructions provided in the Request for Proposal (RFP).

1.5 Discussions

The Government intends to award without discussions but reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary; therefore, each initial offer should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. During the evaluation period it may be determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions. Any discussions will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.306.

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 Source Selection Authority 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. Offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) shall be reflected in the Final Proposal Revision (FPR). The FPR will be considered in making the source selection decision. If the offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as

Section M Page 2 of 6 acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the FPR are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the Offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable.

2 Evaluation Factors and Sub-Factors The following evaluation factors and sub-factors will be used to evaluate each proposal.

• Factor One – Price

• Factor Two – Technical Capabilities o Sub-Factor Security and Cybersecurity o Sub-Factor Internet Protocol (IP) Addresses o Sub-Factor System Set-Up-Time o Sub-Factor Software and Hardware Qualified Personnel

2.1 Evaluation Methodology

Proposal will be evaluated as follows:

2.1.1 Upon Receipt of Proposal

Upon receipt of all proposals and solicitation closure, the Government’s evaluation team will begin evaluating all proposals against all factors contained in this document (Pricing and Technical).

Additionally, the Executive Summary/Completed Solicitation Volume will be evaluated to ensure a complete proposal is received. Initially, Offerors shall be ranked according to price. The Procurement Contracting Officer will notify offerors of any decision to exclude them from the competitive range or from consideration for award.

2.1.2 Factor One – Price

Factor One – Price – The Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be calculated for each Offeror In Accordance With (IAW) procedures listed in paragraph 4. The evaluation team shall evaluate the pricing volume for:

(1) Completeness (2) Reasonableness, (3) Unbalanced Pricing, and (4) Total Evaluated Price (TEP).

2.1.3 Factor Two – Technical

Factor Two – Technical – The Government evaluation team shall evaluate the technical sub-factors of each proposal IAW Section L paragraph 5 and assign a rating of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable.” If any sub-factor is Unacceptable, the entire factor will be rated Unacceptable and will render the entire proposal as Unacceptable and un-awardable.

3 Volume 1 – Executive Summary/Completed Solicitation

3.1 General Outline

The Government shall ensure that each proposal includes all information required in the Executive Summary and Completed Solicitation, including agreement with all Terms and Conditions, exceptions thereto, and completion of required Representations and Certifications and applicable fill in clauses.

3.2 Required Documentation

This volume will be reviewed for completeness. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal to ensure they have submitted all required documentation identified in Section L Instructions to Offerors para. 4.

3.3 Solicitation Requirements, Terms, and Conditions

In order for Offers to be considered for award, they are required to meet all solicitation requirements and other information required, including all terms and conditions and representations and certifications

Section M Page 3 of 6 requirements specifically required in the solicitation. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the complete solicitation may result in the Offeror being rated unacceptable and removed from consideration for award.

3.4 Cross-Reference Matrix

The cross-reference matrix will be utilized as a tool to show critical interrelationships and dependencies among the technical requirements documents (Performance- Based Work Statement (PWS), and the Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL), stated evaluation criteria, and the Offeror’s submitted proposal. 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.

4 Volume II – Price (Factor One)

4.1 Ranking

Offers will be ranked from lowest to highest and evaluated according to the following criteria. The pricing criteria used for evaluation are (1) Completeness, (2) Price Reasonableness, (3) Balance, and (4) Total Evaluated Price (TEP). Offerors whose price volume is determined to be incomplete will not be considered for award. Additionally, an offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines unbalanced pricing poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

4.1.1 Completeness

The Government will review the pricing submissions for completeness and compliance with Section L Instructions to Offerors para. 5.

4.1.2 Reasonableness

The Offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated, using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404, in order to determine if it is reasonable. For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. Generally, adequate price competition will satisfy the criteria for price reasonableness. A comparison of proposed prices will be conducted to determine reasonableness. For additional information see FAR 31.201-3. If adequate price competition is not obtained or if price reasonableness cannot be determined, additional information will be required to support the proposed price.

4.1.3 Balance

Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one or more line items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of analysis techniques such as those defined by FAR Part 15.404-1, Proposal Analysis Techniques. The Government will analyze each proposal to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to separately priced line items in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. An offer may be rejected if the CO determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

4.1.4 Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

The TEP is the sum of the Contract Line-Item Numbers (CLINs) 0001 for year one (1), 0004 for year two (2), and 0007 optional ordering period year 3 only. This TEP price is the only price that will be used for determination of award. The TEP will be used to determine the Lowest Priced offers.

5 Volume III – Technical (Factor Two)

Section M Page 4 of 6

5.1 Technical Proposals

Technical proposals will be evaluated for acceptability in accordance with the criteria set forth in Section L para. 6. Technical (Factor Two) is divided into the following sub-factors; Security and Cybersecurity, Internet Protocol (IP) Addresses, System Set-Up-Time, and Software and Hardware Qualified Personnel.

The technical proposal must convey to the Government that the offeror possesses adequate technical expertise and experience, sufficient resources, and is able to plan, organize, and use those resources in a coordinated and timely fashion to meet the needs of the Government. The offeror’s proposal shall not simply copy and paste, rephrase, or restate PWS or Technical Order language for the technical volume.

The successful offeror’s technical proposal shall be incorporated into the contract by reference.

5.1.1 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.

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

5.1.2 Considered for Award

Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable either initially, or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. The technical factor as a whole will be rated “Unacceptable” if any single factor is rated “Unacceptable”. The offeror is reminded that the Government intends to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussions. However, the Government may hold discussions if necessary. Proposals shall be evaluated against the following factors:

5.1.3 Technical Sub-Factor Evaluation

5.1.3.1 Sub-Factor: Security and Cybersecurity

The Security and Cybersecurity subfactor will be evaluated and rated for technical acceptability based on the following minimum acceptability requirements:

• The offeror’s proposed approach fully demonstrates current capability to satisfy the requirements defined in the Performance Work Statement (PWS) paragraph 3 and associated subparagraphs.

o Physical security is the protection of personnel, hardware, software, networks and data from physical actions and events that could cause serious loss or damage to an enterprise, agency, or institution. This includes protection from fire, flood, natural disasters, burglary, theft, vandalism, and terrorism.

o Cybersecurity is the practice of protecting systems, networks, and programs from digital attacks. These cyberattacks are usually aimed at accessing, changing, or destroying sensitive information.

5.1.3.2 Sub-Factor: Internet Protocol (IP) Addresses

Section M Page 5 of 6

The Internet Protocol (IP) Addresses subfactor will be evaluated and rated for technical acceptability based on the following minimum acceptability requirements.

• Offeror must demonstrate that they currently have three (3) static IP addresses that are accessible from the Department of Defense Information Network (DoDIN).

• The three (3) static IP addresses provided by the offeror will be tested from a governmental facility.

• The three (3) static IP addresses provided by the offeror will be tested while working remotely through the approved Government Virtual Private Network (VPN).

• The three (3) static IP addresses provided by the offeror will be tested using commercial internet provider.

If the source selection team determines that any of the three (3) static IP addresses are inaccessible from either the government facility and/or while working remotely through the approved Government Virtual Private Network and/or through commercial internet providers, the offeror will receive a rating of unacceptable and will be ineligible for award. Note: Section L provides specific details on how to structure the three (3) IP addresses for testing.

5.1.3.3 How IP Addresses will be Assessed

5.1.3.3.1 Government/Base Network Access

Each source selection team member will connect to the current TCG Database from the government/base network. This will validate no connection issues are present through the government network. Then each source selection team member will connect to each of the weblinks/static IP addresses provided by the offeror. All three (3) static IP addresses must be accessible in order to be considered Acceptable from a Government/Base Network.

5.1.3.3.2 Government VPN Access

Each source selection team member will connect to the current TCG Database through the approved government VPN while from a remote location (IE not on government/base installation). This will validate no connection issues are present through the approved government VPN. Then each source selection team member will connect to each of the weblinks/static IP addresses provided by the offeror.

All three (3) static IP addresses must be accessible in order to be considered Acceptable though the approved Government VPN.

5.1.3.3.3 Commercial Internet Access

Each source selection team member will connect to the current TCG Database through a commercial internet service provider while from a remote location (IE not on government/base installation). This will validate no connection issues are present through the commercial internet service provider. Then each source selection team member will connect to each of the weblinks/static IP addresses provided by the offeror. All three (3) static IP addresses must be accessible in order to be considered Acceptable though a commercial internet service provider.

5.1.3.3.4 Final IP Assessment

The offeror will be rated acceptable only if all three (3) IP addresses are accessible via government/base network, Government VPN, and commercial internet service provider. If any source selection team member is unable to connect from the government/base network, through the government VPN, or a commercial internet provider then the Offeror will be rated unacceptable and will be ineligible for award.

Section M Page 6 of 6

5.1.3.4 Sub-Factor: System Set-Up-Time

System Set-Up-Time is a critical technical component that must be met to avoid excessive system downtime. PWS paragraph 5.15, 5.16, 5.16.1, 5.16.2 define timelines to meet the government requirement for system set-up and testing/validating operational capability. System Set-up time will be evaluated and rated for technical acceptability based on the following minimum acceptability requirements:

• The offeror’s proposed approach must clearly describe their detailed timeline on how the offeror will meet the requirements of PWS paragraph 5.15, 5.16, 5.16.1, 5.16.2, including meeting all deadlines and timeframes within those sections. The offeror’s approach must describe all processes and procedures to fully demonstrate their understanding of and implementation of all activities required to complete operational testing and operational capability.

5.1.3.5 Sub-Factor: Software and Hardware Qualified Personnel Software and Hardware qualified personnel are key to ensuring the TCG Database stays operational and that any software or hardware hiccups are addressed in a timely manner as defined within the PWS paragraph 5.11 and 5.11.1. The Software and Hardware Qualified Personnel subfactor will be evaluated and rated for technical acceptability based on the following minimum acceptability requirements. The offeror must fully demonstrate that they have personnel that are qualified on the following:

• Hardware Knowledge

• System Component Knowledge

• Architecture Overview and Servers

• Front End Software

• Web Server Software

• Software Framework

• Database Server and Schemas

(PWS paragraphs 4.2.2.1; 4.2.2.2; 4.2.2.3)

6 Pre-Award Survey The Government may conduct a Pre-Award Survey (PAS) as part of source selection activities. Results of the PAS (if conducted) will be used in determining each Offeror's capability to meet the requirements of the solicitation based on current capability observations.

6 Pre-Award Survey