TOR 0001.pdf

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

U.S. ARMY CONTRACTING COMMAND - ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND

RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK CONTRACTING DIVISION

800 PARK OFFICE DRIVE

RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC 27709

REPLY TO

ATTENTION OF

TOR Number: 0001

Date of Issue: <>

Description of Services: DoD HBCU/MI Summer Research Internship Program

Location of Services: Contractor facilities and Government facilities as required

Questions Deadline: <>

No Bid Response: <>

Closing Date & Time: <>

Procurement History: N/A

1. SUMMARY OF TOR

1.1. This is a TOR for requirements to be provided under the DEVCOM-ARL Woman Owned Small Business Outreach Support Initiative contract numbers W911NF-XX-D- XXXX through -XXXX.

1.2. Contract Authorization: The task requirements incorporated in TOR 0001 are issued pursuant to FAR 16.505(b)(1) and the terms of the DEVCOM-ARL Woman Owned Small Business Outreach Support Initiative Multiple Award Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity Contracts (MACs) W911NF-XX-D-XXXX through XXXX.

The task requirements are within the Scope Determination of the DEVCOM-ARL Woman Owned Small Business Outreach Support Initiative Multiple Award (MA IDIQ) Contract’s Performance Work Statement Mission Area “1.3.2” Please ensure that the entire TOR, including all the attachments, has been read prior to submitting Task Order Proposal (TOP).

1.3. Your TOP shall be in full compliance with the instructions in this TOR. The TOP (to include Cost/Price) shall be valid for a minimum of 180 calendar days.

1.4. This TOR includes the following attachments:

Attachment 1: PWS

TOR – 0001

1.5. Task Order Type: The Government contemplates awarding a Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee

(CPFF) TO.

1.6. Period of Performance: 12 months with three (3) Twelve (12) month options

2. INSTRUCTIONS FOR OFFERORS:

2.1. Questions regarding TOR 0001 shall be in writing and directed via e-mail to William Creech, William.a.creech3.civ@army.mil, and Mia Steele, mia.a.steele2.civ@army.mil.

All correspondence shall reference TOR 0001.

Awardees shall carefully read, understand, and provide all the information requested in the TOR. If there are parts of the TOR that are vague and/or ambiguous, request clarification from the Contract Specialist and the Contracting Officer before the established cut-off date for questions.

2.2. Offerors are notified that the Government will not reimburse costs incurred for TOP preparation, to include pre-award site visits.

2.3. The evaluation and discussion procedures at FAR Subpart 15.3 Source Selection does not apply to this acquisition. The Government will conduct evaluations using the best value trade-off approach and will follow FAR 16.505 Ordering, and paragraph 5 of this document, Evaluation Criteria, considering solely the Offeror’s response to this

TOR.

2.4. Although the Government does not intend to hold discussions/communications, the Government does reserve the right to hold discussions with those offerors determined to be in the competitive range. If the Government holds discussions or communications with designated offerors, the Government will establish a competitive range based on the ratings of each proposal against all evaluation criteria. The Contracting Officer will only enter discussions with those offerors determined to be in the competitive range.

Any TOP revisions may be limited to the items negotiated at the Contracting Officer’s discretion.

2.5. The Offeror shall submit an unclassified TOP which demonstrates its ability to perform and meet the requirements in the Task Order PWS.

2.6. Proposals shall conform to all the requirements of this TOR. Failure to conform may result in your TOP being rejected and no longer evaluated or considered for award.

2.7. Offerors shall not include citations for, or linkages to, websites in their proposal, and no portion of the proposal shall be password protected.

2.8. When proposing to utilize Subcontractors in response to this TOR. Offerors shall adhere to the following:

2.8.1. FAR 52.215-12, "SubContractor Certified Cost or Pricing Data," must be adhered to and required information shall be provided as part of the Prime Offerors proposal submissions by the TOR due date.

2.8.2. Prime Offerors are responsible for ensuring that fully disclosed rates are provided for evaluation of proposals in response to TOR 0001.

a. Subcontract proposals: Prime Offeror must provide a cost analysis that fully supports the reasonableness of Subcontractor costs to include an analysis of costs and fee/profit.

In addition, the Prime Offeror shall ensure that Subcontractors provide a complete breakdown of costs to include Subcontractor costs and fee/profit proposed to the KO by the closing date. See format in Table 15-2 of FAR 15.408 for guidance. Primes shall require Subcontractors to submit fully disclosed rates to the Contracting Officer or Contracting Specialist by the closing date of TOR 0001.

FAILURE TO PROVIDE THIS INFORMATION BY THE TOR CLOSING DATE MAY

RESULT IN PROPOSALS BEING ELIMINATED FROM CONSIDERATION OF TASK

ORDER AWARDS.

2.8.3 All proposed T&M subcontracts must be supported by a written determination and finding that clearly supports that it is not possible at the time of placing the contract to estimate accurately the extend or duration of the work or to anticipate costs with any reasonable degree of confidence and that no other contract type is suitable.

2.8.4 FAR 52.215-22 - Limitation on Pass-Through Charges-Identification of Subcontract Effort and FAR 52.215-23 - Limitation on Pass-Through Charges are applicable to this requirement. If Subcontractor costs proposed exceed 70% of the total costs to be performed, Offerors shall comply with the subject clauses by providing sufficient information for the Contracting Officer to determine the added value along with assessment of fee and indirect costs. This information will be used as part of the best value decision and evaluation of all elements of costs.

2.9 Fee on travel and equipment costs is not authorized for Prime or Subcontractors.

2.10. By responding to this TOR, the Offeror agrees to meet all the requirements incorporated herein, including those listed in Attachment 1 – PWS, and agrees to all terms, conditions, and provisions.

3. TASK ORDER PROPOSAL CONTENT:

The length of your response to this TOR is limited, as identified below. Take extreme care and attention to ensure that all required documents are included in the TOP.

Information submitted beyond the page limitations, identified below, will not be evaluated and may be considered cause for rejection of your TOP:

Volumes and number of copies each are identified below. The evaluators will read only up to the maximum number of pages specified. Submission shall be limited to the number of pages specified, total inclusive of any drawings, charts, etc. Type shall be no smaller than a font size of ten (10) and shall be at least single spaced. Page size shall not exceed 8 ½” x 11”. Fold-out illustrations required for reader ease are allowed, however, illustration shall be counted in 8 ½” x 11” increments (e.g., a 11” x 17” document will count as two pages). Resumes shall not count against total allowable pages.

Proposal Section Page Limitation Volume I, Management (Factor 1) 15 Volume II, Technical (Factor 2) 15 Volume III, Cost (Factor 3) Unlimited

3.1. Volume I, Management (Factor 1)

The Management Volume shall be clear, concise, and include sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiating the validity of stated claims in the Offeror’s proposal. Legibility, clarity and coherence are very important. Offeror’s responses will be evaluated against management evaluation criteria as defined in this TOR. The proposal should not simply rephrase or restate the Government's requirements, but rather shall provide convincing evidence of the rationale to address how the Offeror intends to meet these requirements. For purposes of this factor, Offerors shall assume that the Government has no prior knowledge of their facilities and experience, and will base its evaluation only on the information presented in the Offeror’s proposal. The volume shall be organized into the following sections and the proposal shall address the following as a minimum:

The proposal must demonstrate a realistic management and contract management approach that provides a high likelihood of success in responding to all tasks required as shown in Attachment 1, PWS, of this TOR. All pertinent issues must be addressed including: managing personnel at widely dispersed locations. A proposal must demonstrate clear ability to match resources to a suitable and cost-effective solution with appropriate effective management oversight and control. Proposals shall identify all associated team members. The Offeror shall demonstrate that the contract management capabilities and processes will work effectively, with the Government Team, throughout the life of the task order. In conjunction, the Offeror shall: (1) Articulate their understanding/ability to manage day to day needs of the program elements to include intellectual property (IP) and PII; (2) a plan for providing time sensitive deliverables as defined in the Performance Work Statement; (3) provide a plan for subcontracting work to other businesses; (4) provide an annual evaluation of the qualifications and credentials of personnel and businesses involved in the management and execution of the ARL Outreach; and (5) provide a robust Quality Control/ Quality Assurance plan that are compliant with federal regulations and requirements.

3.2. Volume II, Technical (Factor 2)

3.2.1 The Offeror shall identify in its proposal the expertise, knowledge and capabilities that will enable the proposed Offeror to successfully perform the requirements identified in the TOR with specific emphasis in the Performance Work Statement (PWS). The Offeror must identify teaming arrangements it plans to use to support the PWS throughout the task order period. In addition, the cohesiveness of the team should be discussed, including whether those teaming partners will fill any key positions within the proposed organizational structure.

INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY: Offerors are cautioned that the number of FTEs should be supported by each Offeror’s specific technical approach/proposal.

3.2.2 The Offeror’s proposal and its proposed personnel shall demonstrate how its capabilities and those of its proposed subcontractor/team members, will successfully perform the requirements with respect to the PWS. The proposal must also describe how proposed employees will be utilized to the benefit of the resultant Task Order. The Offeror shall include Letters of Commitment of personnel being proposed.

3.2.3 The Offeror shall provide a resume not to exceed three (3) pages for each employee or prospective employee proposed. The resumes shall be provided in the following format and provide sufficient information for the Government to be able to assess Key Personnel capabilities with respect to technical knowledge and expertise and management leadership and experience: The Offeror shall provide the following information for all employees in the following resume format:

a) Name

b) Proposed Assignment: Title, Job Description and Organizational Responsibilities (Full or Part Time Status)

c) Current Position (Beginning Date: Month/Year)

a. Firm

b. Significant Experience

c. Specific Projects

d) Previous Positions (at least 5 years)

a. Firm and period of employment

b. Significant Experience

c. Specific Projects

e) Education

a. Degrees, Dates, Major and School

b. Other Educational Training (month/year)

c. Licenses or Certifications

f) Professional Activities and Achievements

a. Awards

b. Significant Publications

c. Licenses or Certifications

g) Security Clearance and Investigation Type and Date

h) Unique Qualifications (Summarize any relevant, unique experience, education, or personal characteristics that may not be evident from the information above.)

RESUMES AND LETTERS OF COMMITMENT SHALL NOT COUNT AGAINST THE

PAGE LIMITIATION FOR FACTOR 02.

3.2.4 The Offeror shall submit the Technical Approach and demonstrate how well it realistically supports the requirements described in the PWS and associated Attachments. The Offeror will present its perceived performance risk with the current schedule and identification of the mitigation factors required to assure that the schedule will be met.

3.2.5 The Offeror shall demonstrate the realism of the proposed labor resources (labor category, hours per labor category, and qualifications) required to execute the technical approach. Information given here shall correlate to the Offeror’s cost/price proposal.

The Offeror shall specifically identify and substantiate the realism for all proposed labor resources. Information given here shall correlate to the Offeror’s cost/price proposal.

The Offeror shall also complete the tables listed below:

Labor Category/Skill Mix for Prime Hours Per Labor Category for Prime

Labor Category/Skill Mix for Subcontractor Hours Per Labor Category for

Subcontractor

Travel Number of

Trips Number of Individuals Traveling

Applicable PWS Section Trip Relates To

Where Traveling

From and To

Duration of Trip

3.3. Volume III, Cost/Price (Factor 3)

3.3. The Offeror shall submit its Cost proposal in Microsoft Excel format, utilizing any of the following versions: Microsoft Office 2000, 2007, or Office XP. Spreadsheets shall be sent in a file format that includes all formulas, macro, and format information. Print image is not acceptable.

3.3.1 The Offeror shall break out and detail all costs including labor, travel, material, and Other Direct Costs (as applicable). The Offeror shall also address the Contractor Manpower Reporting requirement. The Offeror shall identify and explain any exceptions or deviations. Additionally, identify any assumptions used in the TOR preparation (if applicable).

The Offeror shall also provide a cost narrative to substantiate the proposed costs. The cost narrative shall be described in sufficient detail to substantiate what is proposed and how the Offeror arrived at the amounts proposed. If there are gaps in the pricing that cannot be substantiated, the proposal may be rejected.

3.3.2 Travel charges shall be authorized in advance. The Offeror’s travel charges shall be proposed in accordance with the current volume of the Government Joint Travel Regulations (JTR). The Offeror will not be reimbursed for travel within a 50-mile radius of the Offeror's primary business location.

3.3.3 Fee/profit on travel is not authorized and shall not be reimbursed under the terms of the resultant task order for both prime and Subcontractors.

3.3.4 If proposing Subcontractors, the Offeror shall explicitly detail on its Cost/Price proposal the amount of work subcontracted, in terms of both dollars and percentage. A Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data, in the format specified in FAR 15.406-2 (as applicable). A cost analysis which supports the determination of fair and reasonableness of price must be included to support Subcontractor proposals.

Additionally, if proposing Subcontractors, the Offeror shall explicitly detail on its Cost/Price proposal the amount of work subcontracted, in terms of both dollars and percentage.

In addition to the Cost/Price proposal submitted, in accordance with FAR 15.408, Table 15-2, the Offeror shall submit a cost breakdown as follows:

Base Period Task Number CPFF

3.1 $XXX.XX

3.2 $XXX.XX

3.3 $XXX.XX

3.4 $XXX.XX

Materials Item Applicable PWS

Paragraph is Required For

Quantity Cost

4. SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS:

4.1. GENERAL:

4.1.1. It is the Offeror’s responsibility to assure its proposal is received by the date and time specified above. In accordance with FAR 15.208, if your proposal (all volumes) is not received at the initial point of entry to the Government (received through web based system or e-mail) by the exact date and time specified above, it will be determined late and will not be evaluated.

4.1.2. Offerors shall submit separate electronic documents, by Volume, with its TOP.

4.1.3. Ensure that all volumes are submitted in response to this TOR. Failure to do so may result in your TOP not being considered. Your TOP shall be structured in a manner that clearly addresses the requirements for this TOR. Responses that are overly verbose or include marketing material are not desired.

4.3. E-MAIL SUBMISSIONS:

4.3.1. Offeror’s shall ensure that all required documents are included in the TOP. It is the Offerors’ responsibility to ensure TORs are received by the Government. Offerors are cautioned that e-mail is not instantaneous. We recommend you submit your TOP prior to the closing date, allowing enough time to ensure the entire TOP is received on time to be considered for award. If all portions of any e-mail TOP are not received by the TOR closing deadline, the TOP shall be rejected as late (see FAR 52.215-1(c)(3)).

Re-send your e-mail submission if you do not receive a receipt confirmation. If you do not receive a receipt confirmation after the second transmission, contact the Contract

Equipment Item Applicable PWS

Paragraph Equipment is Required For

Quantity Cost

Proposed Subcontractors Name of

Subcontractor Applicable PWS Paragraph

Subcontractor will be Performing Services in Support Of

Cost

Specialist. Due to Government exchange size limitations, we cannot receive individual e-mails that exceed 10 MB, including the e-mail itself plus all attachments. If your electronic TOP, including all attachments, is larger than 10 MB, you shall segment your TOP into a series of two (2) or more separate e-mails that individually are no larger than 10 MB. We cannot receive e-mails if they contain compressed attachments. Our security software blocks these types of e-mails.

5. EVALUATION CRITERIA:

For this TOR 0001, a Single Task Order will be made based on the best overall value proposals that are determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the three (3) Evaluation Factors:

(1) Management

(2) Technical

(3) Cost

The Management Factor is significantly more important than the Technical Factor. All non-cost Factors when combined are significantly more important the Cost Factor. The Government’s proposal evaluation will be limited to the information provided by the Offeror and nothing will be assumed. The Offeror is responsible for including sufficient details to permit a complete, thorough, and accurate evaluation of the submitted proposal.

***Offeror must receive a rating of no less than “Acceptable” in Technical and Management evaluation factors in order to receive an award under this TOR. If an Offeror receives less than an “Acceptable” Rating in the Technical and Management Factors, the remainder to the proposal shall not be evaluated.***

5.1 FACTOR 1 – MANAGEMENT - EVALUATION

The Management factor evaluates the Offeror’s proposed approach for the contract performance period.

Marginal levels of overall approach to the management factor could indicate a lack of understanding concerning mission requirements and may result in the entire proposal receiving an unfavorable rating and/or being eliminated from the competitive range, if one is established.

The management approach shall describe how the Offeror will ensure all work performed produces quality services and deliverables and will describe Offeror’s plan for interacting with Government personnel. The management approach shall also describe staffing, quality control, problem resolution methodology, and the subcontracting strategy for the performance of tasks.

The Management approach should also provide evidence of (1) ability to fulfil positions that enable the offeror to quickly execute contract functions (staffing strategy) to include history of collaboration with university and academic partners and industry, (2) Strategy for successful interaction with Government personnel, and (3) Key personnel proposed for this effort to include a review of resumes. Additionally, the management approach shall include a plan for status reporting and completion of work including all deliverables, and how the offeror plans to track progress in meeting any goals and objectives of this requirement.

Manage Travel: The offeror shall describe its ability to manage travel for the different CCDC ARL Outreach Programs for Students and professional development as listed in the PWS. The database management system must be sufficient to maintain travel records for CCDC ARL Outreach Students.

Database/Financial Management. This section shall describe the offeror’s database and financial management system. The database management system must be sufficient to collect and categorize applications; maintain records of unsuccessful applicants for four years from date of application; maintain records of current Students for four years; and maintain records of selectees for four years. Data shall be organized such that demographic lists, alphabetical lists and other data are easily accessible. The database shall include information regarding the student's institution, current address, scientific discipline, academic record, comments and any benefits derived from participation in the program.

The offeror shall demonstrate the database management system will be maintained accurately and comprehensively to provide information to Army, DoD, and Congressional personnel in a timely manner regarding the program's demographics, minority participation, attrition, follow-on research opportunities and program finances.

5.2 FACTOR 2 – TECHNICAL - EVALUATION

The evaluation will assess the extent to which the Offeror possesses the expertise, knowledge and capabilities for successful performance of the requirements identified in the TOR and PWS. The evaluation will assess the description/ qualifications/ certifications and Resumes of the proposed employees to include proposed subcontractors. In order to receive a rating of Acceptable in the technical factor an Offeror must include resumes of the number of technical personnel that supports the Offerors approach.

Technical Capability Volume shall provide methodology that contractor will use for accomplishing/satisfying the Performance Work Statement. Do not merely reiterate the objectives or reformulate the requirements specified in the PWS.

Administration of Payment of Stipends and Academic Expenses. This section shall describe the Offeror’s process/approach to ensure students will be provided stipends and the students’ universities will be provided full tuition, required fees, and any other appropriated funding. The offer shall demonstrate experience in providing successful accomplishment of all aspects of student administration in a science and technology environment to include: managing a range of new students per year; ability to manage up to students in a program; and processing new studentship applications during the contract.

Panel Evaluation. The Offeror shall describe its ability to convene panels of experts drawn from the academic community in the disciplines listed in the PWS. The Offeror shall demonstrate the ability to successfully solicit the willing participation of evaluators of the highest caliber (selection of qualified evaluators is a vital component in the successful operation of the program) given that the Offeror’s status within the U.S.

academic and science and technology community shall be of sufficient stature to successfully enlist highly qualified evaluators for the review process.

Attraction of Applicants: The Offeror shall describe its approach for attracting highly-qualified applicants via outreach plan as described in PWS.

Website Design and Maintenance: The Offeror shall describe its ability to design and maintain website to sustain an on-line application process (promotion to award), market and promote Army research opportunities and overall CCDC ARL Outreach program details to include annual CCDC ARL Outreach Workshop and travel.

5.3 FACTOR 3 – COST/PRICE

The Cost/Price Factor evaluation will be conducted on the basis of cost and fee. The proposed cost and fee will be evaluated for reasonableness and realism of proposed costs/prices to accomplish the technical approach. The techniques and procedures described under FAR 15.404-1(c), and (d) will be the primary means of assessing TOP reasonableness and realism. Reasonableness and realism are defined as follows:

Cost/Price Reasonableness: The Government will evaluate the cost reasonableness of the Offeror's proposed cost and fee/profit, in accordance with the definition in FAR 31.201-3. A Cost/Price is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business.

Cost Realism: The Government will evaluate realism by independently reviewing and evaluating the specific elements of the Offeror’s proposed cost estimates and prices to perform the resultant TO, to determine whether the proposed TO Costs/Prices are (a) realistic to meet the requirements of TOR 0001 and (b) accurately reflect the technical approaches contained in the Offeror’s Technical Approach factor. The result of the realism evaluation will be a determination of the probable Cost/Price of performance by the Offerors. The probable Cost/Price may differ from the proposed Cost/Price. The probable Cost, rather than the proposed Cost/Price, shall be used in the trade-off evaluation to determine best value. The probable Cost/Price will be determined by adjusting the Offeror’s proposed cost and fee to reflect any additions or reductions to cost elements, to realistic levels based on the results of the cost realism analysis.

The results of the Cost Realism assessment may be used in the assessment of proposal risk under the Technical factor. In the event that the Offeror’s Cost/Price Factor proposal is inconsistent with, and/or reflects a lack of realism regarding the Offeror’s Technical factor, the Technical factor evaluation results may be downgraded commensurate with the extent and impact of the realism shortfalls.

6.0 BASIS FOR AWARD – BEST VALUE TRADE OFF APPROACH

6.1. The Government intends to award a single TO resulting this TOR to the Offeror whose TOP will provide the overall “Best Value” to the Government; Technical and Cost/Price considered. The Contracting Officer may select for award that offer in which the total evaluated Cost/Price is not necessarily the lowest, but whose overall TOP is deemed sufficiently more advantageous to the Government so as to justify the payment of a higher Cost/Price. Conversely, the Contracting Officer may select for award the Offeror whose total evaluated price is the lowest when other responses are not sufficiently more advantageous to justify the payment of a higher Cost/Price.

6.2. The Government intends to evaluate responses and award a TO without discussions/communications with Offerors. Therefore, the Offeror’s initial TOP shall contain its best terms from a cost/price and technical standpoint. However, the Government does reserve the right to negotiate with one or more, but not necessary all, Offerors for any reason, if we so desire. Any TOP revisions shall be limited to the items negotiated. The Government may accept other than the lowest price, and waive informalities and minor irregularities in the submitted TOPs.

6.3. Task Order Proposals submitted in response to this TOR will be evaluated by Government Subject Matter Experts. Careful, full, and impartial consideration will be given to all TOPs not otherwise rejected. An adjectival rating scale shall be used for all non-cost evaluation factors, see below. The non-cost evaluation will include: the TOP’s level of detail for the Technical Approach and the extent of experience related to the PWS requirements; strengths; weaknesses; deficiencies; and risk. Cost/price will be evaluated for reasonableness and realism.

6.4. Adjectival Ratings. The Technical and Management factors will be assigned an adjectival rating based on the definitions shown below. The Technical/Managerial Factor Ratings, excerpted below focus on the strengths, deficiencies, weaknesses, risks and uncertainties of the Offeror’s proposal. The color rating depicts how well the Offeror’s proposal meets the Technical/Managerial requirements.

Rating Method

Color Rating

Adjectival Rating Description

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

Purple 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.

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

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

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

Definitions

Evaluation Findings are the written observations/judgments regarding the individual merits of the proposal against the solicitation requirements.

Deficiency is 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.

Rating is the adjective/color descriptor assigned by the evaluators to the non-Cost/Price Factors and corresponding Subfactors. It represents their conclusions as to the quality of the proposal, supported by narrative write-ups identifying the associated strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, and uncertainties. The strengths, weaknesses, etc., are the findings that support the rating adjective/color.

Significant Strength is an aspect of an Offeror's proposal that has appreciable merit or appreciably exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be appreciably advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Significant Weakness in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Strength is an aspect of an Offeror's proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Terms and Conditions Concerns are issues related to any of the contract provisions in the solicitation.

Trade-off Process is the process which permits trade-offs among cost or price and non-cost factors and allows the Government to accept other than the lowest priced proposal.

Uncertainty is 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).

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

7. REJECTION OF OFFERS:

The circumstances that may lead to the rejection of a TOP are:

7.1. When the TOP fails to meaningfully respond to the instructions specified.

7.1.1. When the Government is evaluating an Offeror’s technical approach and a TOP merely repeats the contract PWS without elaboration or fails to present more than a statement indicating its capability to comply with the TOR terms and does not provide support or detail how they will perform.

7.1.2. When the TOP fails to provide any of the data and information required in the

TOR.

7.2 When the Government is evaluating a Offeror’s technical approach and a TOP merely repeats the contract PWS without elaboration or fails to present more than a statement indicating its capability to comply with the TOR terms and does not provide support or detail how they will perform.

7.3 When the TOP fails to provide any of the data and information required in the TOR.

7.4 When the TOP reflects an inherent lack of technical competence or a failure to comprehend the complexity and risks required to perform the TOR requirements due to submission of a TOP, which is substantially high or low in Cost/Price and/or unachievable in terms of technical, labor mix, or schedule commitments.

7.5 When the TOP contains any unexplained significant inconsistency between the proposed effort and cost/ price, which implies the Offeror has (a) an inherent misunderstanding of the PWS, or (b) an apparent inability to perform the resultant contract.

7.6 When the TOP is unbalanced as to cost or price. An unbalanced offer is one which is based on costs or prices significantly high or low for one given period, versus another period.

7.7 There shall be a direct relationship between the effort expended and its cost or price for each basic and option year.

7.8 When the TOP contains major error(s), omission(s) and or deficiencies that indicate a lack of understanding or an approach that cannot be expected to meet requirements or involves a very high risk and none of these conditions can be corrected without major rewrites or revisions of the TOP.

7.9 When the TOP offers a product or service that does not meet all stated material requirements of the TOR.

7.10 When the TOP is late, in accordance with FAR 52.215-1(c)(3) and the Electronic Submission Instructions herein.

7.11 When the TOP is significantly high or low as to cost or price, or is unaffordable to the government.

7.12 When the TOP is not in full compliance with the terms and conditions of the TOR.

8. POST AWARD-NOTICES AND DEBRIEFINGS: Post-award notices and debriefings will be conducted in accordance with (IAW) FAR 16.505(b)(4). The Contracting Officer will notify unsuccessful awardees IAW FAR 15.503(b)(1), as directed by FAR 16.505(b)(4)(i). Upon such notification, unsuccessful awardees may request and receive a debriefing IAW FAR 15.506(b)(1), as directed by FAR 16.505(b)(4)(ii). Unsuccessful awardees desiring debriefing shall make their request IAW the requirements of FAR 15.506, as applicable.

9. ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST: The term “Organizational Conflicts of Interest” (OCI) is defined in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 2.101; also see FAR 9.502 (c). For this TOR, “OCI” exists when an Offeror would face an actual or potential conflict of interest if it worked on the planned TO, due either to its other business interests or to the nature of the effort to be performed. Organizational conflicts of interest are more likely to occur in contracts involving:

a. Management support services;

b. Consultant or other professional services;

c. Offeror performance of or assistance in technical evaluations; or

d. Systems engineering and technical direction work performed by a Offeror that does not have overall contractual responsibility for development or production.

The Contracting Officer has reviewed and analyzed the PWS under this TOR and has not identified any OCI issue, potential or otherwise. However, Offerors are encouraged to make a preliminary disclosure to the Contracting Officer, prior to the due date for receipt of TOPs, of any OCI issues the Offeror has identified. Such preliminary disclosure will allow the Contracting Officer more time to assess both the potential OCI and the Offeror’s proposed strategy to negate or mitigate the OCI. This assessment may be crucial since, per FAR 9.504(e), the Contracting Officer may not award the Task Order to an Offeror with an OCI that cannot be negated or mitigated.

If the Offeror demonstrates to the Contracting Officer that there may be a possible conflict of interest arising out of an existing contract, the Contracting Officer shall take the necessary action to delete that requirement from this TOR and/or mitigate any conflict of interest that may be present. The Offeror agrees that the Government or an authorized representative may, up to three years after acceptance of all programmatic documentation to be delivered under this TO, restrict the Offeror’s future participation in any resulting program managed system acquisition action(s).

10. ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS AND TASK ORDER CLAUSES:

10.1. TAILORED CLAUSES FOR THIS TASK ORDER:

10.2. CONTRACTOR VERIFICATION SYSTEMS (CVS): The Contractor is responsible for processing applications for Common Access Cards (CAC) for every Contractor employee who deploys with the military force OR who has need to access any Government computer network in accordance with FAR 52.204-9, “Personal Identity Verification of Contractor Personnel.”

The Contractor is responsible for managing requests for new or renewal CAC cards in sufficient time to ensure that all Contractor employees have them when needed to perform work under this contract. The norm is at least ten (10) calendar days advance notice to the Trusted Agent* (TA), unless there are extenuating circumstances approved by the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) or Contracting Officer. *The COR will be the TA for this contract.

The Contractor shall obtain an Army Knowledge Online (AKO) e-mail address for each applicant, including subcontractors, who may be deployed or require logical access to a Government computer network. This can be done by going to: http://www.us.army.mil and register as an “Army Guest,” with the sponsor being the COR. Note: If a Contractor employee loses the privilege to access AKO, they lose the ability to renew their CAC.

Therefore it is critical that Contractor employees maintain their AKO accounts.

Recommend a “Corporate Facility Security Officer" (FSO) be established to serve as your firm’s single point of contact for CVS. If a FSO is not established, each Contractor employee requiring a CAC will be required to process their own applications.

CAC applications shall be processed through the DoD’s Contractor Verification System (CVS) found at https://www.dmdc.osd.mil/tass. The Contractor’s FSO or Contractor employee shall submit requests for a CAC via email to the CVS Trusted Agent (TA) at - 1- before accessing the CVS website.

The Government will establish a CVS application account for each CAC request and will provide each Contractor employee a USER ID and Password, via e-mail, to the FSO.

The FSO or Contractor employee shall access the CVS account and complete the CAC application (entering/editing Contractor information as applicable) at:

https://www.dmdc.osd.mil/tass.

The FSO or Contractor employee will submit completed applications in CVS and will follow up to ensure that the TA is processing the request.

The Government will inform the Contractor’s applicant, via e-mail, of one of the following:

a. Approved.* Upon approval, the information is transferred to the Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System (DEERS) database and an e-mail notification is sent to the Contractor with instructions on obtaining their CAC. The Contractor proceeds to a Real-Time Automated Personnel Identification System (RAPIDS) station.

b. Rejected.* The Government, in separate correspondence, will provide reason(s) for rejection.

c. Returned. Additional information or correction to the application required by the

Contractor employee.

*The Contractor will maintain records of all approved and rejected applications.

At the RAPIDS station, the RAPIDS Verification Officer will verify the Contractor by SSN and two forms of identification; one of which shall be a picture ID. The Verification Officer will capture primary and alternate fingerprints, picture, and updates to DEERS and will then issue a CAC.

Issued CACs shall be for a period of performance not longer than three (3) years or the individual’s contract end date (inclusive of any options), whichever is earlier.

The Contractor shall return issued CAC’s to the DEERS office upon return from deployment, departure, or dismissal of each Contractor employee. Obtain a receipt for each card and provide to the TA/COR.

A CAC cannot be issued without evidence that the FSO has initiated a National Agency Check with Written Inquires (NACI). CVS will be linked to the Joint Personnel Adjudication System (JPAS) in the near future. The TA will have to verify, via JPAS, that the FSO has initiated the NACI before he/she can approve a Contractor request for a

CAC.

Details and training on CVS are available on AKO at:

https://www.us.army.mil/suite/portal/index.jsp or by contacting the CAC helpdesk at e-mail: iacacpki.helpdesk@us.army.mil, or telephone: 866-738-3222.

We look forward to receiving your respective proposals. However, interested parties who choose NOT to submit a proposal won’t be penalized in any fashion. We simply request you to advise in writing before the no-bid cutoff date if you’re respective proposal will or will not be submitted.

Please send written questions or responses to TOR 0001 via e-mail to the POCs identified at the front of this document.

Thank you for your interest in Department of Defense Programs.

William Creech Contracting Officer U.S. Army Contracting Command (ACC) Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG) RTP Division (RTP)

Distribution: <>