ACES_-_Section_L__M_Draft_(rev3).docx

Section L – Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors

L.1 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS. These instructions are a guide for preparing offers in response to Request for Proposal (RFP) W52P1J-16-R-0047. They describe the extent of information the Offeror should provide and emphasize the significant topic areas the Offeror should address in its proposal. Each Offeror shall submit a maximum of one proposal. The United States Government (USG) will not reimburse the Offeror for costs incurred in association with the preparation of its proposal. The Offeror is expected to review the Performance Work Statement (PWS) contained in Section J of this RFP for further insight into the areas that the proposal must address. The Offeror should include in its proposal sufficient information to enable the USG to determine the Offeror’s understanding of the requirements in each of the evaluated areas. Offerors are cautioned that repeating language of the PWS with a statement of intent to perform does not reflect understanding of the requirement. Clarity and completeness are essential. Data not submitted with the proposal, but submitted previously or presumed to be known, will not be considered as part of the proposal. Proposals lacking information may be considered unacceptable and may be eliminated from any further consideration. The USG will not open discussions for the sole purpose of allowing Offerors to add detail to proposals. The Offeror must provide information in sufficient detail to allow the USG to make an assessment of the Offeror’s ability to successfully execute the mission. In accordance with FAR 15.306(a) and FAR 15.306(d), Evaluation Notices will be used to document each significant weakness, weakness and/or deficiency.

L.2 POINT OF CONTACT (POC). Any questions or concerns shall be addressed, in English, to the POCs listed below. All volumes shall be sent by e-mail to Army Contracting Command Rock Island (ACC-RI), at the following e-mail addresses:

Ms. Danette Wilson Email: danette.d.wilson.civ@mail.mil Ms. Trisha Polfliet Email: trisha.l.polfliet.civ@mail.mil L.3 STANDARD PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS. This section specifies the format each Offeror shall use in preparing its proposal. The intent is not to restrict the manner in which proposals are prepared, but rather to ensure a certain degree of uniformity in proposal format for evaluation purposes. The proposal shall be prepared in a clear, legible, practical manner. Five separate volumes shall be submitted. These volumes shall be self-contained and shall not be cross-referenced. Unless specifically requested, pricing information shall not be contained in any volume except the Cost/Price Volume. Proposals not structured in accordance with (IAW) these instructions may be considered incomplete and may not be evaluated. The USG will not assume the duty to search for data or information to cure problems discovered in any proposal submitted. Offerors shall not specifically prepare samples or descriptive literature for submission with the proposal. Adherence to the prescribed formats will simplify the review process for the USG. The burden of providing complete and thorough information to address the elements below remains with the Offeror. Each volume shall have an introduction and table of contents. Each volume must be indexed and tabbed independently from all other volumes as detailed below:

L.3.1. Page Layout. Each page is defined as one sheet, one side. Excess pages will be removed from the back of each volume and will NOT be read or evaluated. Page limits do not prohibit the USG from requesting additional supporting data. Pages must be 8.5" x 11, 12 Point font or greater, Arial font, single-spaced, typed in black on white background (black on white requirement does not apply to graphics, photos, etc., company stationary and logos are acceptable). Font requirements apply to bullets and other special text formatting, including tables and graphic displays.

L.3.2. Proposal Organization. No classified material shall appear anywhere in the proposal. All proposal volumes shall include:

L.3.2.1. Proposal submission in response to this RFP requires the executed signed copy of the RFP and all amendments and COMPLETE copies of Volumes I through V. This statement supersedes any other guidance regarding submission.

L.3.2.2. It is highly recommended that the Offeror request a Return Receipt or other form of acknowledgment to verify that the proposal submission was received.

L.3.2.3. A complete proposal MUST be received no later than the date and time specified in the RFP. Receipt means actual receipt by the individuals identified in this RFP, not merely receipt by the USG. Offerors shall submit proposals in a single submission prior to the closing date and time listed in the RFP. Contractors are responsible for verifying with the Contract Specialists to ensure that the proposal submitted has in fact been received. This must be done by the date/time set in the RFP for "Receipt of Offers". Failure to confirm receipt will result in the waiver of any argument of a proposal being submitted timely, but not delivered to the Contracting Officer or Contract Specialist. Any proposals, or partial proposals, received after the date and time set for submission may be considered late and treated as such.

Note: Please note the maximum e-mail attachment size is 20MB and self- extracting .exe and .zip files are no longer accepted.

L.3.2.4. Files shall be in English utilizing Microsoft Office (Word and/or Excel) or PDF format only.

L.3.2.5. Each volume shall be organized and formatted so that an extensive search of the proposal is not necessary to perform an evaluation. Each volume shall contain a separate "Table of Contents" that identifies all paragraphs and subparagraphs covered within that volume of the proposal by paragraph and subparagraph number, title, and by page number, a list of tables, figures, etc. All computer files shall be virus checked prior to submission. Offerors may be held financially liable for damage caused to USG computer systems by any virus introduced during review of these submitted documents. Information not in its appropriate volume and not appropriately referenced may be assumed to have been omitted. Price proposal information shall not be included in the Technical and/or Management Volume and the files shall not exceed the specified length regardless of the reason. Volumes shall not be cross-referenced. Offerors shall not submit verbatim sections of the appendices to this RFP as part of its proposal.

L.3.2.6. Proposal Limitation: Technical and Management proposals shall not exceed 50 pages for each volume. The Offeror may divide the page count between the subfactors as deemed appropriate, but shall not exceed the total page limit of 50 pages for each volume. Past Performance Summary shall not exceed 5 pages. There is no page limit for the Price Proposal. Information provided in excess of these limitations will be removed and will not be considered in evaluation. The USG will not accept any changes to the submitted proposal after the closing date of the RFP (See FAR 15.208 for further information regarding late submissions). Page limitations do not prohibit the USG from requesting additional supporting documentation.

L.3.2.6.1. Page Limit Does Not Include: The following areas which have their own page limitation which include: an introduction (maximum of 3 pages), and table of contents (No limitation; the table of contents should list all of the topics in order by page numbers). Page limits also do not include signed first page of the RFP, signed first page of amendments, Past Performance Questionnaires, Resumes, letters of commitment, exhibits, tables, certificates, licenses, Memorandums of Agreement (MOAs), coversheets, table of contents, indices, title pages, and section dividers/tables if they are inserted solely to provide ease to the reader in locating parts/sections of the proposal. Pages will be counted if they contain any other information, i.e., diagrams, extraneous data, etc. Pages marked “This page intentionally left blank” will not be counted. Anything else not specifically specified in this paragraph will be included in the page count.

L.4. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and its amendment have resulted in an increasing number of requests from outside the USG for copies of proposal submissions and other documents submitted to federal agencies. If an Offeror’s submission contains information that it believes should be withheld from such requestors under FOIA on the grounds that they contain trade secrets and commercial or financial information [5 USC 552(b)(4)], the Offeror should mark its submissions in the following manner:

L.4.1.The following notice should be placed on the title page: Some parts of this document, as identified on individual pages, are considered by the submitter to be privileged or confidential trade secret or commercial or financial information not subject to mandatory disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. Material considered privileged or confidential on such grounds is contained on page(s) ___.

L.4.2.Each individual item considered privileged or confidential under FOIA should be marked by placing the text within {brackets} with the following notice placed in the right margin: Privileged or Confidential.

L.5 Volume I – Factor I – Security Requirements (Acceptable/Unacceptable)

Offerors must provide proof of a current U.S. Facility Clearance at the Secret level in accordance with DoDD 5220.22, National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual. This Secret level clearance requirement applies to the prime Contractor, subcontractors, and personnel that will perform on this contract. For those Offerors submitting a proposal as a newly formed partnership, joint venture, or limited liability company, the requirement can be satisfied through the submittal of documentation evidencing the fact that at least one of the lead partners or member companies of the partnership currently possesses the required Facility Clearance. Offerors shall include the CAGE and DUNS codes for verification.

L.5.1 Factor 1: Facility Security Clearance and Position Clearances

The Offeror shall show how it possesses and will maintain an active, DoD Facility Secret Clearance during the term of the contract and appropriate clearances according to the PWS for all Contractor personnel (to include prime and subcontractors/consultants).

L.6 Volume II – Factor II – Technical Capability

L.6.1 Factor II: Technical Capability

The introduction shall consist of no more than three (3) pages and shall provide a brief overview of the company. The introduction shall specify the person(s) contributing authorship. Table of Contents: The Table of Contents should reference the page number where the USG may locate specific information contained within the proposal. The Technical Volume shall include a signed copy of the RFP and signed copies of each amendment. The Technical Capability proposal shall describe the Offeror’s understanding, processes, abilities, and experiences to successfully execute all requirements identified in the PWS.

L.6.1.1 Subfactor IIA: Demonstrate your firm’s experience with implementing state of the art cybersecurity technologies, engineering, policy, and operations in a large diverse organization.

The Offeror shall demonstrate and describe its technical experience and approach to meeting the PWS requirements with regards to implementing state of the art cybersecurity technologies, engineering, policy and operations within a large organization.

L.6.1.2 Subfactor IIB: Demonstrate how your firm performs analysis on Department of Defense (DoD) and Foreign National Systems in order that you are able to recommend improvements and/or integration strategies.

The Offeror shall demonstrate and describe its technical experience and approach to meeting the PWS requirements with regards to analysis performed on DoD and Foreign National Systems and their ability to recommend improvements and/or integration strategies moving forward.

L.6.1.3 Subfactor IIC: Demonstrate how your firm has successfully managed day to day operations in a large diverse organization.

The Offeror shall demonstrate and describe how they have, and will, successfully provide day to day management in a large diverse organization.

L.7 Volume III – Factor III – Management Approach

Volume III shall include an Introduction and Table of Contents. The Offeror’s proposal shall include a comprehensive approach to successfully execute the mission requirements, comprised of three (3) subfactors as follows:

L.7.1 Subfactor IIIA: Staffing Plan/Retention The Offeror shall define and describe its proposed management approach to meeting the PWS requirements, to include the procedures, processes, etc. the Offeror will utilize to successfully execute all task requirements. The plan shall describe the Offeror’s ability to plan, manage, control, and satisfy the PWS objectives and performance requirements. The Offeror shall describe its overall workload management plan. The plan shall describe how the Offeror will ensure quality of deliverables (e.g., what internal performance metrics they will use), describe how the Offeror will approach task requirements specified in the PWS, including the development of deliverables, and describe the Offeror’s planned “Chain of Command” for managing this effort. If a teaming, partnering or subcontracting arrangement is proposed, a full explanation of the relationship of the parties and responsibilities shall be included. Offerors shall submit a detailed Organizational Chart identifying the proposed structure for all proposed employees. The Offeror’s corporate structure, on-site management team, and management approach, to include the employment of measures and metrics shall also be provided. The Offeror shall submit a quality, relevant management approach describing procedures, documentation, and methods for tracking the requirement objectives including communicating with the Government, handling corrective actions, and implementing improvements. The Offeror shall propose areas of measurement/oversight and the metrics and/or standards that will be applied to determine success.

The Offeror’s plan shall describe proposed staffing levels (personnel and hours) at each organization, labor category mix, and position descriptions, along with the position’s experience, training, and certification requirements. The Offeror also shall provide the following: Staffing Plan; The Offeror’s approach must demonstrate their ability to obtain/retain personnel with proper security clearances, including skilled management and technical professionals. Offeror’s approach must demonstrate the ability to dynamically allocate personnel resources in response to changing requirements at each organization. The proposal should provide demonstrated evidence that the Offeror has the ability to provide personnel in all labor categories as required by the PWS. As identified in the PWS, sample resumes shall be submitted for all personnel proposed to occupy key positions. The sample resumes for key personnel shall contain information related to the following: proposed job title; clearance information; academic qualifications, including types of degrees and IA certifications earned. The USG recognizes that short of a signed letter of commitment personnel may change from time of proposal to time of award, however resumes proposed will serve as representation of skill set the Offeror intends to solicit and propose. The proposal shall provide evidence of the Offeror’s established staffing process demonstrating the Offeror is capable of acquiring (interview and hire), training, and maintaining staffing levels (personnel sustainment, retention, and backfill of personnel) to meet the requirements of the PWS, and specifically addresses anticipated personnel turnover. The Offeror shall clearly indicate the percentage of personnel provided by the prime Contractor and percentage provided by major subcontractors. The percentage of the total time each key personnel would be available to devote to any resulting agreement shall also be included. Major subcontractors are defined as members of an Offeror’s overall team who are expected to perform ten percent or more of the proposed effort. Offerors must demonstrate an ability to write, as well as staff and coordinate plans, policies, and standards.

The Offeror’s plan for recruitment and retention of personnel should encompass all tasks. The Offeror’s proposal should provide a high degree of confidence to the Government that the Offeror’s plan for continuity demonstrates an ability to recruit, train, and retain sufficient numbers of personnel with required skill sets to support the requirements.

The Offeror’s Certification and Training Plan shall demonstrate how they ensure personnel are trained in and maintain mandatory certifications as outlined in DoDD 8570 (Information Assurance Training, Certification and Workforce Management, Dec. 2005) as well as certifications and training required within the IT specialty each Contractor supports. The Offeror shall show proof of certification and training for each contracted employee prior to placement on the contract. The Offeror’s Training Plan must address how the staff will maintain technical expertise, using a two-year window towards the future, to ensure that the staff can modify and enhance the unit’s IT system baseline.

L.7.1 Subfactor IIIB: Quality Control Plan (QCP) The Offeror's QCP shall include a comprehensive, verifiable, and self-implementing approach for monitoring the Offeror's performance at each organization while ensuring that it does not require the USG to perform this assurance function. The Offeror shall provide the following:

1) Overall Approach - Submit a quality, relevant, and appropriate approach describing procedures, documentation, and methods for tracking the requirement objectives including communicating with the USG, handling corrective actions, and implementing improvements.

2) Performance Standard - Submit quality, relevant, appropriate, and innovative performance standards for meeting objectives.

3) Quality Assurance for Subcontractors - Demonstrate the effort-based relationship that will be established with each subcontractor. Describe how the subcontractor is assigned a unique 'lane in the road' due to recognized expertise. The subcontractors' roles in Quality Assurance should be included with the prime Contractor's proposal submission.

4) Measures and Metrics - Offeror shall propose measures and metrics that will provide obtainable goals to demonstrate that the quality and quantity being delivered are consistent with the requirements as set out in the PWS. The Offeror shall provide explanations of how measures and metrics will be employed to satisfy the PWS objectives in all functional areas. The final terms of the QCP will be negotiated with the USG post award.

L.7.2 Subfactor IIIC: Subcontracting Plan

The Offeror shall submit how its plan maximizes opportunities for small business and proposes use of small business participation in the potential contract to include commitment to small business and complexity and (b) its past small business participation in contract performance (realism).

L.7.2.1. Proposed Small Business Participation:

a. For SBs, as identified by the size standard for the NAICS code applicable to this solicitation (541512), the Offeror’s own participation as a SB will be included in the evaluation of small business participation.

b. The Government will use the subcontractor’s written certification to verify the size and small business type(s) for small business companies identified in the Contract Participation Matrix. If the size and small business type(s) cannot be verified, the Offeror’s proposed small business percentages may be adjusted by the Government.

L.7.2.2. Past Small Business Participation (Realism):

Offerors that have no recent or relevant contractual history that required compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, and 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, will be treated neither favorably nor unfavorably under this subfactor. Participation in terms of value of the total contract and the complexity of specific products/services that will be provided by those SBs. The proposal will be given an adjectival rating without regard to realism.

L.8 Volume IV – Factor IV – Past Performance

L.8.1 Past Performance Data: Data submitted may represent either Government or commercial type contracts that are recent and relevant. If the Offeror has no recent or relevant Past Performance, the Offeror shall state so. For the purpose of submitting proposals, “recent” is defined as occurring within the five years prior to the solicitation closing date. “Relevant” is defined as a measure of the extent of similarity between the service/support effort, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and subcontract/teaming or other comparable attributes of past performance examples and the source solicitation requirements; and a measure of the likelihood that the past performance is an indicator of future performance. The maximum number of allowable contracts that an Offeror may submit for Past Performance evaluation is three recent and relevant contracts. The Government will assess past performance information that demonstrates quality of performance relative to the size and complexity of the procurement under consideration. The Government reserves the right to eliminate any past performance reference information that is determined to be irrelevant to this acquisition, i.e., not recent or relevant. In accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.305(2)(ii), the Offeror may use past performance of current contracts (including Federal, State, local Government, and private) for efforts that are similar to the required services. The Offeror’s past performance documentation shall include, at a minimum, the following information:

L.8.1.2 General Information: The Offeror is reminded that both independent data and data provided by the Offeror in the proposal may be used by the Government to evaluate past performance. However, the burden of providing thorough, complete, and current information as requested in the above paragraph and within the solicitation remains with the Offeror. In the event that an Offeror has no past performance history, e.g., a new firm, the Offeror may submit past performance information for key personnel performance information, the Offeror should also include past performance information on major subcontractors that will perform critical aspects of the requirement, team members, partners, and other entities that comprise the proposal. The Government will consider past performance of subcontractors identified in the Offeror’s proposal when assessing the Offeror’s past performance.

When assessing past performance, the USG will focus its evaluation on the answers/comments received in response to the Past Performance Questionnaire including:

1) Compliance of Products, Services, Documents, and Related Deliverables to Specification Requirements and Standards of Good Workmanship.

2) Effectiveness of Project Management (to include use and control of subcontractors).

3) Timeliness of Performance for Services and Product Deliverables, including the Administrative Aspects of Performance.

4) Effectiveness in Forecasting and Controlling Project Cost.

5) Commitment to Customer Satisfaction and Business-life Concern for its Customers’ Interests.

6) Overall Satisfaction. However, Offerors are cautioned that in conducting the past performance assessment, the USG may use the data provided in the questionnaires as well as data obtained from other sources.

7) Significant achievement, problem, or lack of relevant data in any element of the work can become an important consideration in the source selection process; a negative finding under any element may result in an overall high risk rating for the factor. Therefore, Offerors are reminded to act carefully in selecting past efforts. If there is no relevant past performance, the Offeror will be evaluated neither favorably nor unfavorably and such lack of relevant past performance will be considered an unknown risk under the factor.

L.9 Volume V – Factor V – Cost/Price

L.9.1. Offerors shall submit their proposals using the Price Matrix (Attachment _____). Failure to propose prices for all yellow highlighted cells may result in the Offeror’s proposal being considered unacceptable and ineligible for award.

L.9.2. Offerors shall completely fill out the Price Matrix by entering the required information in the yellow highlighted cells. Gray shaded cells represent totals or USG-developed surrogates; no action is required by Offerors in relation to gray shaded cells.

L.9.3. All prices for this acquisition shall be stated in U.S. Dollars, rounded and displayed to two decimal points.

L.9.4. Cost proposals are assumed to represent the Offeror’s best efforts, as final proposal revisions may not be requested. Any additional information considered necessary to explain the proposed pricing shall be submitted at the time of proposal submission.

L.9.4. Certified Cost or Pricing Data/Data Other than Certified Cost or Pricing Data – The USG anticipates receiving competitive proposals and using competition to determine price reasonableness. However, the USG reserves the right to request certified cost or pricing data or data other than certified cost or pricing data necessary to determine price reasonableness if competition is not adequate for that purpose. Certified cost or pricing data and data other than certified cost or pricing data, if required, must be submitted in accordance with the instructions specified at FAR 15.403-5.

L.9.5. The Price Matrix has been locked to prevent inadvertent changes. Offerors shall not alter the Price Matrix in any way. If an Offeror changes the price matrix, its proposal may be considered unacceptable and ineligible for award. The Price Matrix shall be completed as follows:

L.9.5.1. Summary Total Proposed Tab Offerors shall complete the Summary – Total Proposed Price tab by entering its name in the yellow highlighted cell. The remaining cells on the Summary – Total Proposed Price tab are linked to total in other areas of the Price Matrix, which allows this tab to act as a summary of the proposal.

L.9.5.2. Base Year and Option Year Tabs Offerors shall enter amounts into all cells highlighted yellow on the Base Year and all Option Year tabs.

L.9.5.3. Signed proposals must indicate the total price for each Contract Line Item Number (CLIN). The USG has provided surrogate dollar amounts for travel and other direct costs (cost reimbursable) for evaluation purposes only in the Price Matrix. The Offeror shall not change these dollar amounts.

L.9.6. Price Information: All information relating to the proposed price including all required supporting documentation must be included in the section of the proposal designated as the Price Volume. Under no circumstances shall this information and documentation be included elsewhere in the proposal.

L.9.7. The price factor will be evaluated, but not adjectively rated. FAR requires that contracts be awarded at prices that are fair and reasonable. The Contracting Officer is responsible for the determination of price reasonableness. The cost proposals will be evaluated using price analysis in accordance with FAR 15.404-1, Proposal Analysis Techniques.

L.9.8. The USG intends to evaluate price reasonableness in accordance with FAR Part 15.404-1(b), relying primarily upon competition. The USG expects adequate competition and a comparison will be made of Total Evaluated Prices (TEPs) received in response to the solicitation. Recent Department of Defense Policy states that Contracting Officers will no longer use the standard at FAR 15.403(c)(1)(ii) or (iii) to determine that the offered price is based on adequate competition when only one offer is received. In the event where only one offer is received in response to the solicitation, certified cost or pricing data or other than certified cost or pricing data may be required.

L.9.9. Evaluation of Option to Extend Services – The USG will include an estimate for the Option to Extend Services under FAR Clause 52.217-8 in the TEP. For evaluation purposes, the Option to Extend Services will be calculated as one-half of the Offeror’s evaluated price for the Option Period 4 and is included on the Summary tab of the Price Matrix.

L.9.10. Unbalanced Pricing – As part of the cost evaluation, proposals may be reviewed to identity any Unbalanced Pricing. In accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g), Unbalanced Pricing, a proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk.

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD. This acquisition will use formal source selection processes and techniques IAW Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.1, Department of Defense Source Selection Procedures, dated March 2011; and the Army Source Selection Supplement to the Department of Defense Source Selection Procedures, dated 21 December 2012. Award will be made using a Best Value Continuum Tradeoff Process authorized at FAR 15.101-1 as described herein. The following evaluation factors will be used to determine award: Security Requirements, Technical Capability, Management Approach, Past Performance, and Cost/Price. The Source Selection Authority (SSA) will make an award to the responsible Contractor whose offer conforms to the solicitation and is determined to provide the best value to the USG considering price and non-price factors with relative importance assigned to each in accordance with FAR Subpart 9.105. This may result in an award to other than the lowest-priced or highest-rated Offeror.

M.2. NUMBER OF CONTRACT AWARDS. ACC-RI intends to award a single Firm Fixed Price (FFP) contract with Cost Reimbursable travel and other direct cost CLINs. The USG reserves the right to reject any or all proposals and make no award if such action is in the best interest of the USG. An award under this RFP in no way obligates the USG to any additional funds or additional option years.

M.3. COMPETITIVE RANGE. IAW FAR 15.306(c)(2), after evaluation of all proposals, the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) may make a competitive range determination for purposes of efficiency.

M.4. SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENTS. The USG will review the completed proposals and amendments for accurate completion and applicable signatures.

M.5. EVALUATION FACTORS. Evaluation of the proposals submitted shall address each factor and sub-factor as it applies to the PWS. During evaluations of each proposal, the USG will assign each factor and subfactor an adjectival rating and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the identified findings. The USG will conduct its analysis by evaluating the information submitted by the Offerors in response to Section L IAW the relative importance detailed below for the following factors and subfactors:

VOLUME I – SECURITY REQUIREMENTS (Acceptable/Unacceptable)

VOLUME II – TECHNICAL CAPABILITY

Section A Introduction Table of Contents Executed RFP and Amendments

Subfactor IIA: Demonstrate your experience with implementing state of the art cybersecurity technologies, engineering, policy, and operations in a large diverse organization.

Subfactor IIB: Demonstrate how you perform analysis on Department of Defense (DoD) and Foreign National Systems so that you are able to recommend improvements and/or integration strategies.

Subfactor IIC: Demonstrate how you’ve successfully managed day to day operations in a large diverse organization.

VOLUME III – MANAGEMENT APPROACH

Section A Introduction Table of Contents Executed RFP and Amendments

Subfactor IIIA: Staffing Plan/Retention

Subfactor IIIB: Quality Control Plan

Subfactor IIIC – Subcontracting Plan

VOLUME IV – PAST PERFORMANCE

VOLUME V – COST / PRICE

M.6. RELATIVE IMPORTANCE. The USG assigns the following order of importance:

M.6.1. The five (5) evaluation factors will be rated as follows: Security Requirements will either be Acceptable or Unacceptable. If found to be Unacceptable, proposals will not be considered further. Technical Capability is significantly more important than Management Approach, Past Performance, and Cost/Price. Management Approach is more important than Past Performance and Cost/Price. Past Performance is more important than Cost/Price. In order to be considered for award, the proposal must be rated at least marginal in all factors/subfactors. A rating of unacceptable in any single factor/subfactor will render the proposal unacceptable and ineligible for award.

M.6.2. The subfactors IIA, IIB, and IIC, under the Technical Capability Factor, will be rated as equal. A Technical Capability Factor rating will be assigned as a combination of the subfactors’ individual ratings.

M.6.3. The subfactors IIIA, IIIB, and IIIC under the Management Approach Factor, will be rated as equal. A Management Approach Factor rating will be assigned as a combination of the subfactors’ individual ratings.

M.7. EVALUATION APPROACH. All proposals shall be subject to evaluation by the Source Selection Team (SST). The SST of Government personnel may be assisted by non-Government Subject Matter Experts (SMEs). The SMEs will have access to all necessary parts of the proposal submissions pertinent to their area of expertise. The SMEs will not be Factor or Subfactor evaluators, nor will they be members of the SST, but will serve as advisors to the Government team.

M.8. EVALUATION RATINGS. The USG will evaluate the Technical Capability Factor and Management Approach Factor and subfactors using the following adjectival scale:

Color Rating Description

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is unawardable.

M.8.1. Strengths and weaknesses will be assessed as follows:

Rating Description

Significant Weakness In the proposal there is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

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

Deficiency A material failure of a proposal to meet a USG requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. See FAR 15.001.

IAW FAR 15.306(a) and FAR 15.306(d), Evaluation Notices will be used to document each significant weakness, weakness and/or deficiency.

M.9. VOLUME I – SECURITY REQUIREMENTS

M.9. VOLUME II – TECHNICAL CAPABILITY

The Technical Capability Factor will be evaluated to determine the extent that the Offeror understands the USG’s requirements, the technical quality of the proposed approach, and the Offeror’s ability to fulfill the requirements of the PWS and meet the performance criteria. The evaluation of this factor will include examination of the Offeror’s proposed technical capability plan, knowledge of Army requirements, as well as application of industry standards and best practices. In evaluating the Offeror’s technical/management proposal, the USG will review each subfactor to determine how well the proposal shows the following:

M.9.1. Understanding of the Requirements: The extent to which the Offerordemonstrates a clear understanding of the requirements to be satisfied will be evaluated. The extent to which uncertainties are identified and resolutions proposed will be evaluated. The USG will evaluate the Offeror’s submission to determine the degree to which the Offeror provides a logical and effective approach for providing the personnel and compliance requirements necessary to properly execute contract requirements.

M.9.2. Completeness / Adequacy of Response: The extent to which the proposal adequately and completely considers, defines, and satisfies the PWS and other requirements specified in Section L will be evaluated. The extent to which each requirement of the RFP has been addressed in the proposal in accordance with the proposal instructions in the RFP will be evaluated. Mere statements of compliance or repetition of the requirements without a complete discussion and analysis is unsatisfactory.

The USG will conduct its analysis by evaluating the information submitted by the Offeror in response to Section L. The factor has three (3) subfactors:

M.9.3. Subfactor IIA: Demonstrate your experience with implementing state of the art cybersecurity technologies, engineering, policy, and operations in a large diverse organization.

M.9.4. Subfactor IIB: Demonstrate how you perform analysis on Department of Defense (DoD) and Foreign National systems so that you are able to recommend improvements and/or integration strategies.

M.9.5. Subfactor IIC: Demonstrate how you’ve successfully managed day to day operations in a large diverse organization.

M.10. VOLUME III MANAGEMENT APPROACH

The USG will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal to determine the degree to which the Offeror provides a sound and well-developed Management Approach that demonstrates a thorough understanding of the personnel and compliance requirements necessary to properly execute contract requirements in a safe, secure, efficient, and quality-based manner. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the Offeror’s approach facilitates the ability to meet changing requirements in the dynamic environment of Army programs.

M.10.1. Subfactor IIIA: Staffing Plan/Retention The USG will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed Staffing Approach Plan to determine if the Offeror demonstrates a management approach methodology for successful performance of the requirements in the PWS. The Plan will be evaluated to determine the Offeror’s ability to provide a sound management approach and a thorough understanding of the actions, and procedures required to meet the all the requirements in accordance with the PWS.

M.10.2. Subfactor IIIB: Quality Control Plan The USG will evaluate the Offeror's proposed QCP for its completeness and responsiveness to the USG's requirement, specifically the Offeror's understanding of the necessary tasks and implementation requirements as they relate to the USG Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan. The Offeror's understanding of the requirements shall be demonstrated in the QCP.

M.10.3. Subfactor IIIC: Subcontracting Plan The USG will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed Subcontracting Plan for its completeness and responsiveness to the USG’s requirements, specifically the degree to which its plan maximizes opportunities for small business and proposes use of small business participation in the potential contract to include commitment to small business and complexity and (b) its past small business participation in contract performance (realism).

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed participation of Small Business (SB), Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB), Women-Owned Small Business (WOSB), Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) Small Business, Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB), and Service Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB).

The USG will conduct its analysis by evaluating the information submitted by the Offeror in response to Section L.

M.11. VOLUME IV PAST PERFORMANCE

M.11.1. The USG may use information obtained from other sources, or may use information with regard to other contracts or orders performed by the Offeror of which it has knowledge. The USG may review the Offeror’s current and prior performance record of complying with all aspects of its contractual agreements. This evaluation will include quality, timeliness, and cost control. The USG is not required to interview all points of contact identified by the Offeror.

M.11.2. The USG may use recency, relevancy, source, and context of the past performance information it evaluates, as well as general trends in performance, and demonstrated corrective actions. A significant achievement, problem and problem resolution or lack of relevant data in any element can become an important consideration in the evaluation process. A negative finding in any element could result in a lower past performance rating.

M.11.3. The USG will focus its inquiries on the record of performance as it relates to all RFQ requirements, including cost, schedule, performance and management of subcontractors. Major subcontractors are defined as members of an Offeror’s overall team who are expected to perform ten percent or more of the proposed effort. A significant achievement, problem, or lack of relevant data in any element of the work can become an important consideration in the evaluation process. Therefore, Offerors will be reminded to include the most recent and relevant efforts in their proposal. Absent any recent and relevant past performance history or when the performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror will be assigned an unknown confidence rating and its proposal will not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably on past performance. The USG may use data provided by the Offeror in its proposal and data obtained from other sources including, but not limited to, data in USG files or data obtained through interviews with personnel familiar with the Contractor and their current and past performance under Federal, State or Local USG, or commercial contracts for same or similar services. The USG may consider the source and context of the past performance information it evaluates as well as general trends in performance and corrective actions. The USG is not obligated to interview all points of contact identified by Offerors. It is the responsibility of the Offeror to provide complete past performance information and thorough explanations as required by Section L.

M.11.4. Recent contract are defined as follows:

- Were awarded or commenced within five (5) years prior to the closing date of this RFP; or

- Were awarded or commenced prior to five (5) years, but remained on-going as of the closing date of this RFP.

M.11.5. In evaluating the past performance factor, the USG shall consider each Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract requirements. There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: relevancy, quality assessment, and performance confidence assessment.

M.11.5.1. RELEVANCY

The USG will evaluate the Offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the Offeror is to the effort to be acquired through this source selection. Relevancy is not separately rated; however, the following criteria will be used to establish what is relevant which shall include: similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming.

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings:

Rating Definition

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

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

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

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

The USG will conduct its analysis by evaluating the information submitted by the Offeror in response to Section L.

M.12. VOLUME V COST/ PRICE

M.12.1. The cost/price factor will be evaluated, but not adjectively rated. FAR requires that contracts be awarded at prices that are fair and reasonable. The Contracting Officer is responsible for analyzing the prices submitted to determine price reasonableness.

M.12.2. The USG intends to evaluate price reasonableness in accordance with FAR Part 15.404-1(b), relying primarily upon competition. The USG expects adequate competition and a comparison will be made of TEPs received in response to the RFP. However, the USG reserves the right to require submission of certified cost or pricing data and/or data other than certified cost or pricing data and/or data other than certified cost or pricing data from the Offeror adequate to determine the reasonableness of an offer if competition was inadequate for that purpose.

M.12.3. Evaluation of Option to Extend Services. The USG will include an estimate for the Option to Extend Services under FAR Clause 52.217-8 in the TEP. For evaluation purposes, the Option to Extend Services will be calculated as one-half of the Offerors evaluated price for option period four.

M.12.4. Therefore, the Offeror’s TEP for the purpose of evaluation will include the price of all CLINs for the base period, all four option periods and the Total Calculated Price for the Option to Extend Services (1/2 of Option Period 4). Evaluation of options will not obligate the USG to exercise the options. The TEP is inclusive of any USG-developed surrogates.

M.12.5. As part of the evaluation, the USG will review proposals to identify any significant unbalanced pricing found between pricing periods, quantity ranges, contract line items or sub-line items as applicable. IAW FAR 15.404-1(g), i.e., Unbalanced Pricing, a proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the USG.

M.12.6. The methods of evaluation noted above may include the use of information from sources such as, but not limited to, the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) and the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA).