Revised_Draft_LM_released_-_Clean_4-18-19.pdf

A. BASIS FOR AWARD (Section M).

The Government intends to make a single award as a result of this solicitation.

The award will be made based on the best overall (i.e., best value) proposal that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the four evaluation factors: Afghanistan Business License, Technical, Past Performance, and Cost/Price. The Technical Factor will contain the following subfactors:

Mission Capability/Experience, Management/Staffing, and Transition In Plan. The Government will weigh the relative benefits of each proposal and the award will be made based on an integrated assessment of the results of the evaluation. In making this assessment, the Source Selection Authority (SSA) will give due consideration to all of the Factors and their relative order of importance.

For evaluation purposes, the Government intends to first evaluate Factor 1, Afghanistan Business License. Proposals rated as Unacceptable for Factor 1 will be rejected without any further evaluation of the other evaluation Factors/Subfactors, or any opportunity to revise the proposal. Proposals that are rated Acceptable for Factor 1 will be further evaluated, in accordance with the evaluation criteria set forth under each Factor/Subfactor. The Technical Factor is significantly more important than the Past Performance Factor. The Past Performance Factor is more important than the Cost/Price. When combined, all non-price/cost factors are significantly more important than Cost/Price. The Technical Subfactors are in descending order of importance:

Subfactor 1 (Mission Capability/Experience) Subfactor 2 (Management/Staffing) Subfactor 3 (Transition In Plan)

Offerors are cautioned that award may not be made to the lowest priced Offeror.

Offerors that receive a final rating of Red/Unacceptable in any non-price Factor are ineligible for award.

The Government intends to award a contract without discussions as described in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.306(a); however, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if it is in the best interest of the Government.

If an Offeror takes exception to any of the terms and conditions of the solicitation, the offer may not be considered for contract award.

B. FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS TO BE EVALUATED.

The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal. Award will be made to the Offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below. A detailed explanation of the criteria for the evaluation is set forth in the “Evaluation Approach”, Paragraph C of this section. The Government will weigh the relative benefits of each proposal and the SSA will assess the results of the following factors and subfactors:

Factor 1 – Afghanistan Business License Factor 2 – Technical

• Subfactor 1: Mission Capability/Experience

• Subfactor 2: Management/Staffing

• Subfactor 3: Transition In Plan

Factor 3 – Past Performance Factor 4 – Cost/Price

Factor 1: Afghanistan Business License: The Afghanistan Business License shall consist of the Offeror’s ability to demonstrate a valid Afghanistan business license through the base period of performance. During evaluation of each proposal, the Government intends to first evaluate Factor 1, Afghanistan Business License, and will assign a rating of either Acceptable or Unacceptable. Proposals rated as Unacceptable for Factor 1 will be rejected without any further evaluation of the other evaluation Factors/Subfactors, or any opportunity to revise the proposal. Proposals that are not rejected based on the Factor 1 evaluation will be further evaluated. A detailed explanation of the criteria for the evaluation is set forth in the “Evaluation Approach” section of this document.

Factor 2: Technical Factor: The Technical Factor consists of three Subfactors: Mission Capability/Experience, Management/Staffing Plan, and Transition In Plan. The Subfactors are in descending order of importance. During evaluations of each proposal, the Government will assign an adjectival rating and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the identified findings. A detailed explanation of the criteria for the evaluation is set forth in the “Evaluation Approach” section of this document.

For the Mission Capability/Experience Subfactor, Offerors may receive a higher rating for the following:

Performing tasks of similar scope and complexity continuously for three years or more.

Performing at more than two locations concurrently with/for the DoD.

Performing in a non-permissive or hostile environment. Offerors must clearly explain the non-permissive and/or hostile environment encountered.

Factor 3: Past Performance: Each Offeror’s past performance will be evaluated for recency, relevancy and quality. During evaluation of each proposal, the Government will assign a performance confidence rating and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the identified findings. A detailed explanation of the criteria for the evaluation is set forth in the “Evaluation Approach” section of this document.

Factor 4: Cost/Price: The Government will evaluate the realism of the Offeror’s proposed cost for the CR effort through a probable cost analysis. The Government will evaluate price reasonableness for the Firm Fixed Price (FFP) and Time & Materials (T&M) efforts. The Cost/Price Factor will not have an adjectival rating assigned. During evaluation of each proposal, the Government will arrive at a total evaluated price and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the identified findings.

C. EVALUATION APPROACH.

All proposals shall be subject to evaluation by the Source Selection Team (SST) which is comprised of Government personnel. Careful, full, and impartial consideration will be given to all proposals received pursuant to the Request For Proposal (RFP). The result will be a determination of the overall merits of each proposal in terms of its potential to best satisfy the needs of the Government. In making the integrated assessment of the results of the evaluation of all Factors and Subfactors, the Government will give due consideration to the relative order of importance of such and their merit ratings in relationship to cost/price. The Government weighs any increase in merit rating against any additional cost/price to determine if the parity of the relationship warrants the paying of additional cost/price for additional merit.

FACTOR 1 – Afghanistan Business License: The Afghanistan Business License factor will be evaluated on the ability to demonstrate a valid Afghanistan business license at time of proposal submission through the base period of performance.

a. The Government will assign an adjectival rating of either “Green/Acceptable” or “Red/Unacceptable” in accordance with the rating definitions below.

Afghanistan Business License Factor Rating Definitions

FACTOR 2 – Technical: The Technical Factor and Subfactors will be evaluated against the following criteria:

a. Understanding of the requirements. The extent to which the proposal demonstrates a clear and complete understanding of the Performance Work Statement (PWS) requirements, issues to be resolved and the required tasks, services and skill sets required to achieve program objectives.

Color/Rating Description

Green/Acceptable Proposal meets the requirement.

Red/Unacceptable

Proposal does not meet the requirement.

b. Feasibility of Approach. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the proposed approach is workable and the end results achievable. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which successful performance is contingent upon technical knowledge and understanding of the objectives and scope identified in the Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) and Task Order Performance Work Statements.

c. Marginal levels of detail could indicate a lack of understanding concerning requirements and may result in the entire proposal receiving an unfavorable rating and/or being eliminated from the competition.

d. Unsupported promises to comply with contractual requirements will not be sufficient. Proposals must contain supporting rationale for any statements relating to proposed performance. Each proposal will be rated strictly in accordance with its written content.

e. No assumptions will be made by evaluators regarding areas that are not addressed in the Offeror’s written proposal or written responses to Government Evaluation Notices (ENs).

f. Offerors are cautioned that “parroting” of the Technical requirements or the PWS with a statement of intent to perform does not reflect an understanding of the requirement or capability to perform. Offerors are responsible for including sufficient details to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of each proposal. Proprietary information shall be clearly marked.

g. The Technical Ratings listed below focus on the significant strengths, strengths, deficiencies, significant weaknesses, and risks of the Offeror’s proposal. The color and rating depict how well the Offeror’s proposal meets the Technical Subfactor requirements. Technical Subfactor ratings will be rolled up into an overall rating for the Technical Factor.

h. For the Mission Capability/Experience Subfactor, Offerors may receive a higher rating for the following:

Performing tasks of similar scope and complexity continuously for three years or more.

Performing at more than two locations concurrently with/for the Department of Defense (DoD).

Performing in a non-permissive or hostile environment. Offerors must clearly explain the non-permissive and/or hostile environment encountered.

TABLE 1 – COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

Color/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.

Risk, as it pertains to source selection, is the potential for unsuccessful contract performance. The consideration of risk assesses the degree to which an Offeror’s proposed approach to achieving the Technical Factor or Subfactor may involve risk of disruption of schedule, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

The following definitions will be used in the evaluation process:

a. 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.

b. Significant Weakness - A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

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

d. Strength - 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.

e. Significant Strength - 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.

Within the Technical Factor, each Subfactor will be rated separately using the above adjectival ratings. Each Subfactor will be assessed findings, as applicable, for Significant Strengths, Strengths, Significant Weaknesses, Weaknesses, and

Deficiencies. Each Subfactor will be assigned an adjectival rating based on the findings.

The compilation of these Subfactor adjectival ratings will form the basis of the Factor rating. Offerors with a final rating of Unacceptable for any Subfactor or for the Technical Factor are not eligible for award.

FACTOR 3 – Past Performance: The Government will evaluate the Offeror and its major subcontractors on the quality of their relevant and recent past performance, as it relates to the probability of success on the resultant contract. A single confidence rating will be assigned.

a. Evaluation of past performance shall be in accordance with this plan using the forms set forth in the solicitation.

b. The Government will focus its inquiries on the Offeror’s and proposed major subcontractors’ record of performance as they relate to all solicitation requirements, including compliance of delivered products and services, effectiveness of project management, schedule, and customer satisfaction.

“Major subcontractors” are defined as the top three subcontractors, based only upon the highest total proposed Continental United States (CONUS) and Outside Continental United States (OCONUS) labor costs combined.

Offerors that are proposing a joint venture, partnership or a teaming approach may provide past performance information on their team members (e.g. partners, parent companies, subsidiaries, affiliates, etc.) However, Offerors that are relying on the past performance information of their team members must clearly demonstrate that the team member will have meaningful involvement in the performance of the resultant contract for the proposed experience to be considered during the evaluation.

Offerors are reminded to include the most recent and relevant reference contracts (defined below) in their proposal.

The Government may use data provided by the Offeror in its proposal and data obtained from other sources, including data in Government files/databases (Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), and electronic Subcontracting Reporting System or data obtained through interviews with personnel familiar with the contractor, and their current and past performance under Federal, State, or Local Government contracts for same or similar services as compared to the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) 541990 “All Other Professional, Scientific and Technical Services”.

The Government is not compelled to rely on all of the information available.

c. There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevance and quality.

(i) Recency: The first step is to evaluate the recency of the Offeror’s past performance. Recency is defined relative to the release date of this solicitation and:

1) performed within the last five years, or 2) awarded more than five years ago, but performed within the last five years.

(ii) Relevance: The second step of the past performance evaluation is to assess the Offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. There are four levels of relevancy, as shown in the table below. Past performance of greater relevancy will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance.

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings Rating Definition

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

(iii) Quality Assessment: The third step is to assess the overall quality of the Offeror’s past performance. A separate quality assessment rating will not be assigned; however, the past performance confidence assessment rating will be based on recency, relevancy, and quality of performance.

d. Performance Confidence Assessment: The final step is to arrive at a single consensus performance confidence assessment for the Offeror, selecting the most appropriate rating from the chart below. This rating considers the assessed quality of the relevant/recent efforts gathered.

Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Definition

Substantial Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

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

Neutral Confidence No recent/relevant performance record is available or the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating from sources where the information is from other than formal rating systems such as PPIRS and FAPIIS.

Absent any recent and relevant past performance history or when the performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror will be assigned a “neutral confidence” rating and its proposal will not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably for this Factor.

FACTOR 4 – Cost/Price: The Cost/Price Factor will not have an adjectival rating assigned. The Government will evaluate the proposed fully loaded labor rates and indirect rates applicable to the Government provided amounts for Travel and Other Direct Costs (ODCs) depicted in the “COST-PRICE MATRIX” (ATTACHMENT 0007) for all ordering periods, including the ninety (90) day transition in period, the thirty (30) day transition out period, and Task Order 0001. A price reasonableness determination will be made on the total evaluated price. If the Government determines that adequate price competition was not obtained and/or if the total evaluated price cannot be deemed fair and reasonable, the Government reserves the right to request cost or pricing data to evaluate such data utilizing the proposal analysis techniques delineated in FAR 15.404- 1 as deemed appropriate.

A total evaluated price will be calculated by summing the evaluated costs for the FFP, T&M, and Cost Reimbursable (CR) (no fee) requirements in all ordering periods for the basic contract and the evaluated cost for Task Order 0001. The total evaluated price will be adjusted for HUBZone small businesses, if applicable.

BASIC CONTRACT:

T&M Requirements: A price analysis shall be performed in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b). The following Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs) have been established for T&M: CONUS/OCONUS Labor 0002/0003 (Ordering Period 1), 1001/1002 (Ordering Period 2), 2001/2002 (Ordering Period 3), and 3001/3002 (Ordering Period 4).

A price reasonableness approach will be utilized by the Government to determine that the proposed prices offered are fair and reasonable. Price analysis may include evaluating data other than certified cost or pricing data obtained from the Offeror when there is no other means for determining a fair and reasonable price.

The proposed fully loaded T&M labor rates will be multiplied by the Government estimated hours for each core labor category to compute an extended price for each core labor category in all ordering periods as depicted in the “COST-PRICE MATRIX” (ATTACHMENT 0007). These core labor categories and estimated hours are used for evaluation purposes only. If the Offeror’s proposal includes labor categories and hours in addition to those specified in the “COST-PRICE MATRIX” (ATTACHMENT 0007) that the Offeror deems are necessary to perform under the contract, the proposed fully loaded T&M labor rates will be multiplied by the Government evaluated hours for each additional labor category to compute an extended price for each additional labor category in the all ordering periods. All extended prices for CONUS and OCONUS T&M labor will be summed to derive the evaluated price for CONUS and OCONUS T&M labor, respectively, in all ordering periods.

FFP Requirements: A price analysis shall be performed in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b). The following CLINs have been established for FFP: Transition-In 0001 (Ordering Period 1) and Transition-Out 0008 (Ordering Period 1), 1007 (Ordering Period 2), 2007 (Ordering Period 3), and 3007 (Ordering Period 4).

A price reasonableness approach will be utilized by the Government to determine that the proposed prices offered are fair and reasonable. Price analysis may include evaluating data other than certified cost or pricing data obtained from the Offeror when there is no other means for determining a fair and reasonable price.

Transition In Period: The proposed price in the “COST-PRICE MATRIX” (ATTACHMENT 0007 ), inclusive of any labor, ODCs, and/or travel necessary to comply with the requirements in PWS Paragraph C.39., will be the total evaluated price.

Transition Out Period: The proposed price in the “COST-PRICE MATRIX” (ATTACHMENT 0007 ), inclusive of any labor, ODCs, and/or travel necessary to comply with the requirements in PWS Paragraph C.40., will be the total evaluated price.

CR (No Fee) Requirements: The following CLINs have been established for CR (no fee): ODCs/Travel 0004/0005 (Ordering Period 1), 1003/1004 (Ordering Period 2), 2003/2004 (Ordering Period 3), and 3003/3004 (Ordering Period 4). The Government provided costs for ODCs and Travel are used for evaluation purposes only. The total evaluated costs for ODCs and Travel in all ordering periods will be calculated as follows:

ODCs: The evaluated ODCs will be calculated by adding the Government provided ODC costs of $704,180.00 for the Ordering Period 1, $723,897.04 for Ordering Period 2, $744,166.16 for Ordering Period 3, $765,002.81 for Ordering Period 4, and the applicable indirect expenses.

Travel: The evaluated Travel costs will be calculated by adding the Government provided Travel costs of $426,620.00 for the Ordering Period 1, $438,565.36 for Ordering Period 2, $450,845.19 for Ordering Period 3, $463,468.86 for Ordering Period 4, and the applicable indirect expenses.

TASK ORDER 0001 (T&M):

A price analysis will be performed on the proposal for Task Order 0001. Price analysis may include evaluating data other than certified cost or pricing data obtained from the Offeror when there is no other means for determining a fair and reasonable price. The proposed fully loaded labor rates for Task Order 0001 shall be in line with or lower than the not to exceed ceiling T&M rates proposed for the basic contract.

Unbalanced Pricing. The Government may determine that a proposal is unacceptable if the prices proposed are materially unbalanced between prices for any period.

Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, one or more contract line items are significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. A proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

D. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION (Section L).

1. Introduction. The Offeror’s proposal shall be submitted in digital format as set forth below. The complete proposal shall be submitted via Federal Express (FedEx) Corporation, United Parcel Services (UPS) Inc., or Dalsey, Hillblom and Lynn (DHL) Express, but not submitted through regular mail, to the following address:

U.S. Department of Army, Army Contracting Command – New Jersey, 5418 South Scott Plaza, Joint Base McGuire Dix-Lakehurst, NJ 08640 Attn: Rita Heyboer, Contracting Officer

NO ELECTRONIC SUBMISSIONS SHALL BE ACCEPTED.

Army Contracting Command – New Jersey will accept hand delivery of proposals. Due to restricted access to Joint Base McGuire Dix-Lakehurst, Army Contracting Command

– New Jersey will accept hand-delivery of proposals that are ONLY submitted to the Contract Specialist, Frank Borelli. Address/Location and Timeframe of hand delivery of proposals is as follows:

Address: Joint Base McGuire Dix-Lakehurst Hemingway Visitor Center 2270 Fort Dix Road Pemberton, NJ 08068

Location: Inside of Hemingway Visitor Center

Date: ## Month 2019

Timeframe: 12:00 P.M. EST to 2:00 P.M. EST

(NO PROPOSAL SHALL BE ACCEPTED AFTER 2:00 P.M. EST) The Contract Specialist’s cell phone will be the official time used to mark time of receipt.

Proposals shall be submitted ONLY to the Contract Specialist, Frank Borelli, and receipt will acknowledged by both parties, the Government and the Offeror/Offeror’s Representative. The Government will retain a copy and will provide the Offeror/Offeror’s Representative with a copy at that time. Additional copies will not be provided.

Address all questions or concerns you may have to the Contracting Officer and Contract Specialist. All questions regarding this solicitation shall be submitted in writing via electronic mail to ALL of the following:

a. Rita M. Heyboer, Contracting Officer, at rita.m.heyboer.civ@mail.mil

b. Frank Borelli, Contract Specialist, at frank.d.borelli.civ@mail.mil

The Offeror’s proposal shall consist of five volumes. The Volumes are as follows:

Volume I – Afghanistan Business License Volume II – Technical Volume III - Past Performance Volume IV– Cost/Price Volume V – Solicitation, Offer and Award Documents and Certifications/Representations

Files shall not contain classified data. The use of hyperlinks in proposals is prohibited. Proprietary information shall be clearly marked.

Failure to provide proposals in compliance with any requirements of the solicitation may render the Offeror's proposal non-compliant and be grounds for rejection.

Period of acceptance of offers. Proposals in response to this solicitation shall be valid for 180 days (this statement shall be provided in Volume V, Solicitation, Offer and Award Documents and Certifications/Representations as a separate document.)

2. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

a. All text shall be single spaced and in black font on a white background (Black and white requirement does not apply to graphics, photos, company logos, tables, and illustrations). Each paragraph shall be separated by at least one blank line.

Text shall be easily readable. A standard, 12-point minimum font size applies. Arial or New Times Roman fonts are required. Tables and illustrations may use a reduced font size no less than 8-point and may be landscape.

b. The following volumes of material shall be submitted: Volumes I, II, III and

V, shall be contained on one Compact Disc (CD) (two copies of this CD shall be submitted) and Volume IV shall be contained on a separate CD (two copies of this CD shall be submitted). Each CD shall be externally labeled with the volume numbers, date, and the Offeror’s name.

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

Title Page Limit File Name & Extension

VOLUME I -

AFGHANISTAN

BUSINESS LICENSE

Shall Include:

No Page Limit

Offeror nameVOL1ABL.pdf

- PDF copies of Afghan Business License(s)

- Afghan Business License Excel (Attachment 0004)

Offeror nameVOL1ABL.xlsx

VOLUME II -

TECHNICAL FACTOR

Subfactor 1:

Mission Capability/ Experience

Shall Include:

Subfactor 1:

25 Page Limit Offeror nameVOL2SF1.pdf

- Narrative

- Referenced PWSs *No Limit*

- Mission Capability/ Experience References Excel (Attachment 0005)

*No Limit* Offeror nameVOL2SF1.xlsx

*PWSs and Attachment are not included in the page count.*

Subfactor 2:

Management/ Staffing

Shall Include:

Subfactor 2:

30 Page Limit

Offeror nameVOL2SF2.pdf

- Management/ Staffing Plan

Key Personnel Resumes:

- Five (5) Resumes

*Not To Exceed 5 pages per resume.*

Non-Key Personnel Resumes:

- Five (5) LEP 1 and five

(5) LEP 2, for a total of ten

(10) LEP Resumes.

*Not To Exceed 5 pages per resume.*

- Letters of Commitment *No Limit*

*Resumes and Letters of Commitment are not include in page count.*

Subfactor 3:

Transition In Plan

Shall Include:

Subfactor 3:

20 Page Limit

Offeror nameVOL2SF3.pdf - Transition In Plan

VOLUME III - PAST

PERFORMANCE

FACTOR

Shall Include: Page Limit Per Section:

Section 1:

- Past Performance Excel (Attachment 0006)

*No Limit* PASTPERFSEC1.xlsx

Section 2:

Past Performance Narrative.

Not To Exceed 2 pages per reference

Offeror nameVOL3PP.pdf

Section 3:

- Original Schedule/ Performance

Not To Exceed 1/2 page per reference.

Section 4:

- Subcontracts

Not To Exceed 2 pages per reference.

Section 5:

- New Corporate Entity

Not To Exceed 1 page per new

Corporate Entity.

Referenced PWSs

*No Limit*

**PWSs and Attachment are not included in the page count

VOLUME IV -

COST/PRICE FACTOR

Shall Include:

No Page Limit

- Cost-Price Matrix Excel (Attachment 0007)

Offeror nameVOL4CostPriceMatrix.xlsx

- Cost Accounting Checklist (Attachment 0008)

Offeror nameVOL4CostAcctChecklist.pdf

VOLUME V -

SOLICITATION, OFFER

& AWARD, &

CERTIFICATIONS

Solicitation No Page Limit Offeror nameVOL5SF33.pdf

Solicitation Amendments (If Applicable)

No Page Limit

Offeror nameVOL5Amend00.pdf

Certification/ Representations

No Page Limit Offeror nameVOL5CertReps.pdf

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

3. PROPOSAL FILES

a. Format. The submission shall be clearly indexed and logically assembled in searchable Portable Document Format (PDF). Each volume shall be clearly identified and shall begin at the top of a page. All pages of each volume shall be appropriately numbered and identified by the complete company name, date and RFP number in the header and/or footer. A Table of Contents should be created using the Table of Content feature in Microsoft (MS) Word. All price breakdown information to aid in the cost/price evaluation shall be submitted in Microsoft Excel with formulas intact. MS Word (doc) files shall use the following page setup parameters:

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

The following additional restrictions apply:

b. File Packaging. All of the digital proposal files shall be submitted on CDs using the file formats and file names in the Proposal Submission table above. All of the proposal files shall be compressed (zipped) into one file entitled proposal zip using WinZip version 6.2 or later, or as separate uploads in their native format, e.g., doc, xls, ppt, etc., and provided on CDs or Digital Video Discs (DVDs). Files shall be in read-only format, using PDF files. All price breakdown information to aid in the cost/price evaluation shall be submitted with formulas intact in Microsoft Office Excel Read/Write format and viewable in Microsoft Excel 2013. Each disc shall be externally labeled with the volume number, date, and the Offeror’s name. **Please note – Self extracting exe files are not acceptable and will not be evaluated.

c. Content Requirement. All information shall be confined to the appropriate file.

The Offeror shall confine submissions to essential matters, sufficient to define the proposal in a concise manner, to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of each proposal. Each Volume of the proposal shall consist of a Table of Contents, Summary Section, and the Narrative discussion (not included in page count). Proprietary information shall be clearly marked.

(i) VOLUME I – AFGHANISTAN BUSINESS LICENSE

The Offeror shall complete all information in the Afghanistan Business License excel spreadsheet (Attachment 0004) and shall include copies of current licenses. Offerors shall provide information for the prime as well as ALL subcontractors that will be performing in Afghanistan.

(ii) VOLUME II – TECHNICAL FACTOR

Subfactor 1: Mission Capability/Experience:

1. The Offeror shall provide no more than three (3) references for the prime and one

(1) for each of the top three major subcontractors. “Major subcontractors” is defined in Section M.

2. Mission Capability/Experience shall have been performed during the last five years from the date of the release of this solicitation.

3. The Offeror shall complete all information in Subfactor 1 Mission

Capability/Experience References Spreadsheet (Attachment 0005) to include the labor category description(s) for the Law Enforcement Professional (LEP) equivalent being offered. (Not included in the page count.)

4. The Offeror shall provide their referenced PWS with the sections highlighted that are similar scope and complexity. (Not included in the page count.)

5. Offerors shall also provide a narrative demonstrating that it and its team combined have Mission Capability/Experience performing tasks of similar scope and complexity to the specific tasks listed below, which are from the IDIQ and Task Order PWS. This includes experience and ability to analyze what LE, investigative and correctional type support is required for the various train, advise, assist, and mentor support missions. The Offeror shall provide a brief description of the major subcontractor’s experience, whether it was performed as a prime or a subcontractor for the effort, and an explanation describing exactly how the experience is similar in scope and complexity to the requirements for this IDIQ.

The references must specify if the services were provided to Army, other DoD, or a non-DoD entity. (Included in the page count).

6. Offerors shall demonstrate that it and its team combined have Mission

Capability/experience at a minimum:

Managing a minimum of 20 LEPs or equivalent labor category;

Managing contracts as a prime;

Performance of similar tasks at more than one performance location concurrently; and Concurrent performance of at least 2 specific tasks from the Task Order PWS to mentor/train/advise/assist to Host Nation in:

Law Enforcement Investigations Prosecutions/judicial processes Corrections

Subfactor 2: Management/Staffing

The Offeror shall provide a Management/Staffing Plan that:

1. Demonstrates that management has the knowledge to manage and provide experienced law enforcement, investigators, and corrections personnel to train, advise, assist and mentor Host Nation Police and Security Forces.

2. Describes how it intends to manage a dispersed workforce located at various locations.

3. Identifies their specific approach for the hiring/onboarding of personnel for Afghanistan through their arrival at the CONUS Replacement Center (CRC) to include starting location, durations, training provided, medical pre-screening/processing, materials and equipping. This approach shall address the initial push of personnel into Theater upon contract award as well as ongoing performance.

4. Identifies how they will train, equip, manage and supervise the LEPs to accomplish all Task Order PWS technical mission tasks.

5. Provides its recruiting and retention approach to ensure uninterrupted services, accounting for expected and unexpected employee turnover and personnel absences. The Offeror shall demonstrate a customer focused approach reflecting flexibility, timeliness of response, vendor’s ability to reach-back to CONUS based resources, proactive problem solving, and teaming with the Government in offering alternatives, innovations, and solutions. Identify potential risks and the proposed mitigations

In addition, the Management/Staffing Plan shall include the following:

6. Organizational structures in accordance with the IDIQ and Task Order PWS’s for CONUS and OCONUS Program Management Offices to include decision making authority, reporting Chain of Command, and the OCONUS Country Management Team interface with CONUS Program Management Office.

7. Key Personnel. Resumes for five (5) key personnel (CONUS: Program Manager and Assistant Operations Officer and OCONUS: Country Manager, Country Operations Manager, and Country Coordinator) demonstrating the individuals have the relative specialized experience, qualifications, and education in accordance with the IDIQ and Task Order PWS Program Management. (Not included in the page count.)

8. Non-Key Personnel. Submit resumes and letters of commitment for five (5) LEP 1 and five (5) LEP 2 personnel, for a total of ten (10) LEPs, that demonstrate the individual’s specialized experience, qualifications and education in accordance with the IDIQ and Task Order PWS Qualifications for LEP Personnel that demonstrate both the core and specialized position qualifications, responsibilities and duties. (Resumes and letters of commitment are not included in the page count.) Of the 10 non-Key LEPs, assign one each LEP-1 and LEP-2 to the organizations listed below and provide a rationale for the assignment.

a) Train Advise Assist Commands (TAACs) / Task Forces (TFs) (any TAAC/TF, not each)

b) Major Crimes Advisory Group (MCAG)

c) Afghan Law Enforcement Assistance Team (ALEAT)

d) Ministerial Advisory Group-Interior (MAG-I) and the National Police Command Center (NPCC).

e) Joint Task Force-Parwan (Corrections LEPs)

Subfactor 3: Transition In Plan

The Offeror shall provide a Transition In Plan that describes their approach to meeting the requirements of the PWS to allow for successful transition from the incumbent within ninety (90) days of contract award ensuring minimal disruption of operations. The Offeror shall provide a detailed timeline that includes all activities required from award through full performance in Theater. The Offeror shall identify all major milestones and when they project them to be accomplished to support a successful transition. In addition the transition in plan shall address any variations from the Management/ Staffing Plan in order to achieve full performance. Also, identify all risks and provide a mitigation strategy and/or contingency plan for each risk identified, such as methods to eliminate chokepoints that could delay deploying personnel.

(iii) VOLUME III – PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR

This volume shall contain past performance information regarding similar Federal Government contracts and shall consist of Attachment 0006, which the Offeror must complete, as well as a narrative section and various other documents explained below and as applicable to the reference, for a total of five (5) sections in this volume.

For the prime, Offerors shall submit a maximum of three (3) recent and relevant Federal Government contracts, and for each of the top three major subcontractors, a maximum of two (2) recent and relevant Federal Government contracts. Recent is defined as in performance or awarded during the five years since the issue date of this RFP.

Relevant efforts are defined as services/efforts that are the same as or similar to the effort (as compared to NAICS code 541990) required by the RFP. “Major subcontractors” is defined in Section M.

Offerors shall complete Section 1 of Attachment 0006 and also provide a narrative addressing Sections 2 through 5.

(1) Section 1 – Contract List. The Offeror shall complete the Microsoft Excel workbook entitled “PASTPERFSEC1.xlsx,” found at Attachment 0006.

For informational purposes only, a sample is provided (see Attachment XYZ).

(2) Section 2 – Performance Narrative. For Sections 2 through 5, data concerning the Offeror shall be provided first, followed by each proposed major subcontractor, as listed in the excel workbook entitled “PASTPERFSEC1.xlsx.” Offerors are discouraged from providing points of contact with another contractors’ facility.

Offerors shall provide a specific narrative explanation of each contract listed in Section 1, Contract Description, describing the objectives achieved and detailing how the effort is relevant to the requirement of this RFP. The PWS/Statement Of Work (SOW)/ Statement Of Objectives (SOO) for each contract listed must also be provided, highlighting the PWS paragraphs which are relevant to the work described in this RFP.

The narrative shall be no more than 2 pages total per reference. Copies of the reference PWS/SOW/SOO are not included in the page count.

(3) Section 3 – Original Schedule/Performance. For any contracts that did not/do not meet original schedule or technical performance requirements, provide a brief explanation of the reason(s) for the shortcomings and any corrective action(s) taken to avoid recurrence. The Offerors shall list each time the delivery schedule was revised and provide an explanation of why the revision was necessary.

All Requests for Deviation and Requests for Waiver shall be addressed with respect to causes and corrective actions. The Offerors shall also provide copy of any Cure Notices. Show Cause, and/or Termination Letters received on each contract listed and a description of any corrective action implemented by the Offeror or proposed subcontractor. The Offerors shall indicate if any of the contracts listed were terminated and the type and reasons for the termination. The narrative shall not exceed half a page per reference if applicable. Copies of the Cure Notices, Show Cause, and/or Termination Letters are not included in the page count.

(4) Section 4 – Subcontracts. Offerors shall provide a short narrative of how the effort required by this RFP will be assigned for performance within the Offeror’s corporate entity and among the proposed subcontractors. The information provided for the prime Offeror and each proposed major subcontractor must include the type of work to be performed by citing the applicable PWS subparagraph number from the Task Order PWS, Attachment 0006.

This section shall include written commitment and consent of major subcontractors demonstrating that the proposed company is committed to performing this requirement and consenting to the disclosure of their past performance information. Letters of commitment and consent are not included in the page count. The narrative shall be no more than 2 pages total per reference.

(5) Section 5 – Teams/Parent Companies/ Subsidiaries/ Affiliates/ New Corporate Entities. Offerors that are proposing a joint venture, partnership or a teaming approach may provide past performance information on their team members (e.g. partners, parent companies, subsidiaries, affiliates, etc.) However, Offerors that are relying on the past performance information of their team members must explain how the resources of these entities will perform this solicitation's requirements and demonstrate that the team member will have meaningful involvement in the performance of the resultant contract for the proposed experience to be considered during the evaluation.

New corporate entities may submit data on prior contracts involving its officers and employees. The Offeror shall provide a short narrative discussing in detail the role performed by such persons in the prior contracts cited and explain how such persons will perform this solicitation's requirements. Letters of commitment shall be included in the proposal for these employees in order to be considered. Letters of commitment and consent, which are not included in the page count. The narrative shall be no more than 1 page total per new corporate entity.

(iv) VOLUME IV – COST/PRICE FACTOR

Due to the competition anticipated for this effort, certified cost or pricing data is not required. However, data other than certified cost or pricing data, which need not be certified, is required to perform a cost realism analysis to determine the probable cost.

Pursuant to Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation (DFARS) 215.371, certified cost or pricing data may be required when only one offer is received.

This instruction is used to assist the Offeror in developing and documenting adequate support for the costs and overall price included in the proposal. The instruction is not intended to be all-inclusive. The responsibility for providing cost and price documentation rests with the Offeror. The Offeror’s proposal shall contain sufficient cost documentation for analysis and evaluation of the Offeror’s proposal in accordance with FAR 15.403- 5(b)(2) and 15.404.

Each Offeror shall provide a cost/price proposal and accompanying narrative, including a comprehensive list of assumptions, if any, used in the development of the proposal as part of their proposal submission in response to the solicitation. Offerors shall submit their cost/price proposal by completing “FILE NAME FOR THE PRICE MATRIX (ATTACHMENT 0007) of the solicitation. Additionally, the Offeror shall provide a sanitized and unsanitized cost proposal. Unsanitized cost proposals are complete cost proposals which include all required cost data. Sanitized cost proposals shall exclude all company proprietary or sensitive data, labor rates and costs, indirect rates and costs, and fee rate and cost, but must include a breakdown of the total labor hours proposed.

“COST-PRICE MATRIX” (ATTACHMENT 0007) shall not be password protected and shall not be read- only. All Excel formulas, lookup tables, and links shall be intact, and no links shall exist to files not included with the proposal submission. Failure to comply with these formatting requirements may result in rejection of an Offeror’s proposal.

All costs shall be presented in dollars escalated to the projected year of expenditure. All costs/prices shall be rounded to the nearest dollar.

An explanation of the method of cost build-up shall be provided so the evaluator can readily identify the method of each computation.

BASIC CONTRACT:

T&M Labor CLINs: (Ordering Period 1: 0002 & 0003; Ordering Period 2: 1001 & 1002;

Ordering Period 3: 2001 & 2002; Ordering Period 4: 3001 & 3002)

For the T&M labor, each Offeror shall propose the core labor categories and Government estimated hours provided in “COST-PRICE MATRIX” (ATTACHMENT 0007). These core labor categories and Government estimated hours are not to be changed by the Offeror.

The number of Government estimated hours for each core labor category is to be allocated among the Offeror, subcontractor(s), interdivisional transfer(s), and affiliate(s) under common control, herein referred to as subcontractor(s). The total proposed hours for each core labor category shall be equal to the total Government estimated hours listed for each core labor category. The Offeror may propose labor categories and hours in addition to those specified in the “COST-PRICE MATRIX” (ATTACHMENT 0007) that the Offeror deems necessary to perform under the contract.

For the T&M rates, each Offeror must submit a minimum of one rate for each labor category, whether it is by the prime contractor or a subcontractor, for all ordering periods.

Offerors must submit separate rates for effort performed by the prime contractor and subcontractor(s) for each labor category. The prime contractor cannot utilize their fully loaded labor rates for their subcontractor(s). The fully loaded labor rates shall be inclusive of wages, any applicable allowances, applicable indirect expenses, and profit. These fully loaded labor rates will be not to exceed ceiling rates. Offerors may propose lower fully loaded labor rates in future task order competitions. Offerors shall not propose rates where no hours have been proposed/allocated, as they will not be incorporated into any contract that may be awarded as a result of this solicitation.

Subcontracts/Interdivisional Transfers/Affiliates Under Common Control: The prime contractor shall provide a matrix of all subcontracts, including the name, address, total estimated dollar value, and contract type for each subcontractor. For all subcontracts, supporting subcontractor documentation is required and may include vendor quotations, purchase orders, etc. Subcontractor proposals must be received by the solicitation closing date. An explanation shall be provided by the Offeror if the Offeror proposed a different amount than that quoted by the subcontractor, including a detailed breakout of any prime markups.

FFP CLINs: (Transition-In 0001: Ordering Period 1 & Transition-Out 0008: Ordering Period 1, 1007: Ordering Period 2, 2007: Ordering Period 3, & 3007: Ordering Period 4)

Transition In & Transition Out Periods: Offerors shall propose costs for any labor, ODCs, and/or travel necessary to comply with the requirements in PWS Paragraph C.39. & C.40.

For FFP labor, Offerors shall propose fully loaded labor rates inclusive of wages, applicable indirect expenses, and profit. Offerors shall not propose rates where no hours have been proposed/allocated, as they will not be incorporated into any contract that may be awarded as a result of this solicitation. For FFP ODCs and/or travel, Offerors shall propose costs inclusive of applicable indirect expenses and profit.

CR (No Fee) ODCs/Travel CLINs: (Ordering Period 1: 0004/0005; Ordering Period 2:

1003/1004; Ordering Period 3: 2003/2004; Ordering Period 4: 3003/3004)

ODCs and Travel will be reimbursed on a cost, no fee basis. For evaluation purposes, Offerors shall utilize the Government provided costs for ODCs and Travel, as depicted in “COST-PRICE MATRIX” (ATTACHMENT 0007). Additionally, Offerors shall propose CR (no fee) indirect rates applicable to ODCs and Travel in “COST-PRICE MATRIX” (ATTACHMENT 0007).