B08-RFP-W81XWH-21-R-0004-Amend0001.docx

W81XWH21R0004

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following have been added by full text:

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

Other Direct Costs (ODCs)

FFP

Travel and Miscellaneous FOB: Destination

PSC CD: R408

In the RFP, the Contract Type for CLINs 0002, 1002, 2002, 3002, 4002, and 5002 have been revised from Firm-Fixed Price (FFP) to Cost.

No revisions were made to the solicitation.

Position Title: Program Manager Position Title: Deputy Program Manager Position Title: Director IM/IT Position Title: Software Development & Evaluation Manager This information is provided in the solicitation, specifically in the Addendum to 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Items/paragraph 2 Proposal Content and Instructions for Preparation of Proposals/paragraph 2.4 Volume II – Business Proposal/Factor 5 – Price/paragraph 2.4.8 Estimated Level of Effort.

No revisions were made to the solicitation.

Please also see the Addendum to 52.212-2 – Evaluation – Commercial Items/paragraph 2 Evaluation Criteria for Award/ paragraph 2.3.4 Factor 4 – Key Personnel Experience and paragraph 2.3.4.1.

These sections refer back to the Performance Work Statement.

No revisions were made to the solicitation.

No revisions were made to the solicitation.

No revisions were made to the solicitation.

No revisions were made to the solicitation.

In the RFP, the Addendum to 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Items/paragraph 3 File Submission/paragraph 3.1 has been revised.

No revisions were made to the solicitation.

Please also refer to the Performance Work Statement/Part 5/5.0 Specific Tasks/paragraph 5.2.8 Screening and Eligibility Determinations.

No revisions were made to the solicitation.

No revisions were made to the solicitation.

No revisions were made to the solicitation.

No revisions were made to the solicitation.

“This requirement is a 100% set-aside for 8(a) small business concerns under North American Industry Classification Code (NAICS) 541611, Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services. The size standard for NAICS 541611 is $16.5 million. Proposals will only be accepted from contractors who are considered an 8(a) Small Business under NAICS 541611 on the date of proposal receipt.”

No revisions were made to the solicitation.

- The Performance Work Statement/Part 5/ 5.0 Specific Tasks/paragraph 5.1.2 Program Management Plan;

- The Addendum to 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Items/paragraph 2 Proposal Content and Instructions for Preparation of Proposals/paragraph 2.3.2 from Factor 2 – Management and Quality Control Approach to Factor 2 – Program Management and Quality Control Approach and revise paragraph 2.3.2.1; and

- The Addendum to 52.212-2 – Evaluation – Commercial Items/paragraph 2 Evaluation Criteria for Award/paragraph 2.3.2 from Factor 2 – Management and Quality Control Approach to Factor 2 – Program Management and Quality Control Approach and revise paragraph 2.3.2.1.

In the RFP, the following sections have been removed:

- The Addendum to 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Items/paragraph 2 Proposal Content and Instructions for Preparation of Proposals/Factor 2 – Program Management and Quality Control Approach/paragraph 2.3.2.4 Program Management; and

- The Addendum to 52.212-2 – Evaluation – Commercial Items/paragraph 2 Evaluation Criteria for Award/paragraph 2.3.2 Factor 2 – Program Management and Quality Control Approach/paragraph 2.3.2.4 Program Management.

“The Volume I – Technical Proposal is limited to twenty five (25) pages. Pages should be numbered consecutively throughout the document and not by sections. For any sections of a proposal with a defined page limit, pages exceeding the specified limit will be removed and not forwarded for evaluation.”

The Government does not dictate the format/structure of an Offeror’s proposal, or the use of attachments, appendices, etc. It must be clear that the Offeror’s Volume I – Technical Proposal fits within the page limits identified. Separate attachments are acceptable.

No revisions were made to the solicitation.

No revisions were made to the solicitation.

i. DBA Insurance?

ii. Cost of Background checks for new employees?

iii. Cost of Fingerprinting for new employees?

iv. Cost of Badges for new employees?

v. International Payroll / Accounting / Legal Services?

vi. Cost of PPE?"

In accordance with the solicitation, specifically the Performance Work Statement/paragraph 1.8.2 Miscellaneous ODCs, a brief description of Miscellaneous ODCs is provided. Please see below for responses to your specific questions as to if these costs are allowable under the plug number for the Not To Exceed (NTE) ODCs amount given by the Government:

i. DBA Insurance is not allowable under the plug number for the Miscellaneous ODCs amount. This expense will not be billable to ODCs. Offerors are advised to build this into their fully burdened labor rates.

ii. Background checks for new employees are not allowable under the plug number for the Miscellaneous ODCs amount. Background checks will be conducted in accordance with OPM guidelines. Please refer to this website for additional information (https://www.opm.gov/faqs/QA.aspx?fid=cb3cafac-1e73-4a6b-bd88-a3adad355390&pid=ea149dcf-b68e-4be3-ba4a-e66f547c0378).

iii. Cost of fingerprinting for new employees is not allowable under the plug number for the Miscellaneous ODCs amount. The cost of fingerprinting for new employees in the Contractor’s responsibility. This expense will not be billable to ODCs. Offerors are advised to build this into their fully burdened labor rates.

iv. Cost of badges for new employees is allowable under the plug number for the Miscellaneous ODCs amount as Office Supplies.

v. International Payroll/Accounting/Legal Services are not allowable under the plug number for the Miscellaneous ODCs amount. This expense will not be billable to ODCs. Offerors are advised to build this into their fully burdened labor rates.

vi. Cost of PPE is allowable under the plug number for the Miscellaneous ODCs amount as Clinic Supplies.

In the RFP, the Performance Work Statement/Part 1/1.0 General Information/paragraph 1.8.2 Miscellaneous ODCs, the description for Office Supplies and Clinic Supplies has been revised.

In accordance with the solicitation, specifically in the Addendum to 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Items/paragraph 2 Proposal Content and Instructions for Preparation of Proposals/paragraph 2.4 Volume II – Business Proposal/Factor 5 – Price/paragraph 2.4.8 Estimated Level of Effort:

“The following is a level of effort estimate. This is only an estimate. Offerors are advised to carefully review the requirement in deriving the level of effort they believe necessary in providing their best value proposal. Offerors are not bound to propose these labor categories or quantities, rather Offerors are expected to provide the best solution citing the labor mix and quantity required to accomplish the tasks.”

The Estimated Level of Effort provided in the solicitation, is based on historical data.

Also, in accordance with the solicitation, specifically the Performance Work Statement/paragraph 1.7.1 Place of Performance, an estimated number of participants is provided by location. These participant numbers are estimated and will fluctuate.

No revisions were made to the solicitation.

No revisions were made to the solicitation.

REASON FOR AMENDMENT 0001

The purpose of this amendment is to answer questions from potential offerors and to:

- Revise the Contract Type for CLINs 0002, 1002, 2002, 3002, 4002, and 5002 from Firm-Fixed Price (FFP) to Cost;

- Revise the Performance Work Statement (PWS), Part 1, 1.0 General Information, paragraph 1.8.2 Miscellaneous ODCs description for Office Supplies and Clinic Supplies;

- Revise the PWS, Part 5, 5.0 Specific Tasks, paragraph 5.1.2 Program Management Plan;

- Revise the Addendum to 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Items, paragraph 2 Proposal Content and Instructions for Preparation of Proposals, paragraph 2.3.2 from Factor 2 – Management and Quality Control Approach to Factor 2 – Program Management and Quality Control Approach and revise paragraph 2.3.2.1;

- Remove the Addendum to 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Items, paragraph 2 Proposal Content and Instructions for Preparation of Proposals, Factor 2 – Program Management and Quality Control Approach, paragraph 2.3.2.4 Program Management;

- Correct an administrative typo in the Addendum to 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Items, paragraph 2 Proposal Content and Instructions for Preparation of Proposals, paragraph 2.4 from 2.4 Volume II/Factor 5 – Business Proposal to 2.4 Volume II – Business Proposal/Factor 5 – Price;

- Revise the Addendum to 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Items, paragraph 3 File Submission, paragraph 3.1;

- Revise the Addendum to 52.212-2 – Evaluation – Commercial Items, paragraph 2 Evaluation Criteria for Award, paragraph 2.3.2 from Factor 2 – Management and Quality Control Approach to Factor 2 – Program Management and Quality Control Approach and revise paragraph 2.3.2.1; and

- Remove the Addendum to 52.212-2 – Evaluation – Commercial Items, paragraph 2 Evaluation Criteria for Award, paragraph 2.3.2 Factor 2 – Program Management and Quality Control Approach, paragraph 2.3.2.4 Program Management.

There are no other changes.

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES

CLIN 0002

The contract type has changed from FFP to COST.

Other Direct Costs (ODCs)

COST

Travel and Miscellaneous FOB: Destination

PSC CD: R408

ESTIMATED COST

CLIN 1002

COST

Travel and Miscellaneous

ESTIMATED COST

CLIN 2002

COST

Travel and Miscellaneous

ESTIMATED COST

CLIN 3002

COST

Travel and Miscellaneous

ESTIMATED COST

CLIN 4002

COST

Travel and Miscellaneous

ESTIMATED COST

CLIN 5002

COST

Travel and Miscellaneous

ESTIMATED COST

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Addendum to 52.212-2 – Evaluation – Commercial Items

THIS SECTION IS FOR SOLICITATION PURPOSES ONLY. THIS SECTION WILL BE PHYSICALLY REMOVED FROM ANY RESULTANT AWARD, BUT WILL BE DEEMED INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE. THIS ADDENDUM SUPPLEMENTS FAR 52.212-2.

1 INTRODUCTION.

1.1 An Evaluation Panel will evaluate all proposals based on the proposals/documentation provided. The evaluations will be based on the Evaluation Criteria for Award.

1.2 Clarifications. In accordance with FAR 15.306, the Government may conduct limited exchanges with Offerors after receipt of proposals or award without discussions. Such exchanges shall not be used to cure proposal deficiencies or material omissions, materially alter the technical or price elements of the proposal, and/or otherwise revise the proposal. Therefore, the Offeror’s initial proposal shall contain the Offeror’s best terms.

1.3 Competitive Range. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with Offerors (except clarifications as noted above). However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions and request proposal revisions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. If the Contracting Officer decides that discussions with Offerors are needed, a competitive range determination will be made in accordance with FAR 15.306(c). The competitive range will be comprised of all of the most highly rated proposals, unless the range is further reduced for purposes of efficiency. The Contracting Officer will notify Offerors promptly in writing when their proposals are excluded from the competitive range or otherwise eliminated from the competition. That notice shall state the basis for the determination and that a proposal revision will not be considered.

1.4 Number of Contracts to be Awarded. The Government intends to issue one (1) Firm-Fixed Price (FFP) contract award.

1.5 Common mistakes which render offerors proposals to be Unacceptable. The Government offers this short list, which is by no means all-inclusive to aid potential offerors to avoid common mistakes, which may render any proposal unacceptable that includes:

· Merely offers to perform work according to the Request for Proposal (RFP) terms or fails to present more than a statement indicating its capability to comply with the RFP terms without support and elaboration as specified in Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Items.

· Reflects an inherent lack of technical competence or a failure to comprehend the complexity and risks required to perform the RFP requirements due to submission of a proposal that is unrealistically high or low in price and/or unrealistic in terms of technical approach.

· Contains any unexplained significant inconsistency between the proposed effort and price, which implies the Offeror has (1) an inherent misunderstanding of the performance work statement, or (2) an inability to perform the resultant contract.

· Fails to meaningfully respond to the Proposal Preparation Instructions specified in Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Items.

· Cross references from one volume to another volume. All volumes shall be complete with no cross-referencing between volumes.

1.6 Any proposal that is evaluated as unacceptable in terms of any of the evaluation factors may be rejected for such reasons. The Government will evaluate each proposal strictly in accordance with its’ content and will not assume that performance will include areas not specified in the Offeror’s proposal.

1.7 Responsibility. Pursuant to FAR 9.103, contracts will only be placed with contractors that the Contracting Officer determines to be responsible. Offerors must be able to demonstrate that they meet the standards of responsibility set forth in FAR 9.104. The Government reserves the right to conduct a pre-award survey on any and all Offerors.

2 EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR AWARD.

2.1 Award of this order will be made on a competitive best value basis, using “best value tradeoff” among price and non-price factors. The Government may elect to award to other than the lowest priced Offeror, or other than the Offeror with the highest rated non-price proposal. Past Performance will be evaluated independently from the other non-price evaluation factors using different standards identified herein.

2.1.1 The evaluation factors are in descending order of importance:

Factor 3 (non-price) – Past Performance Factor 4 (non-price) – Key Personnel Experience Factor 5 – Price

2.1.2 The non-price factors are collectively more important than price. As the collective non-price factors begin to reach equality in the evaluation, price becomes a more important factor in the tradeoff analysis.

2.1.3 Each individual factor shall be rated individually. If any of the factors receives an individual rating of “Unacceptable,” the collective overall rating will also be “Unacceptable.” The evaluators will assign an Overall Rating to each Offeror based on all rated non-price factors. Only proposals receiving an overall Factor rating of “Acceptable” or higher will be considered for award. In addition, price proposals that are not found fair and/or reasonable will not be considered for award.

2.2 Government evaluators will not assume that the Offeror possesses any capability or knowledge unless it is specified in the proposal.

2.3 Volume I – Technical Proposal. The following criteria will be used to evaluate the non-price factors of the Technical Proposal.

2.3.1 Factor 1 – Technical Approach. The technical approach will be evaluated to the degree to which the Offeror’s technical approach demonstrates:

2.3.1.1 The overall ability to perform services in accordance with the PWS. This description will be evaluated, at a minimum, for the Offeror’s approach and demonstrated ability to:

· A technical approach and overall ability to perform WIC Overseas program support as described in the PWS.

· Provide program support for all of the WIC Overseas offices to include marketing the program, providing nutrition education, and screening participants to determine eligibility.

· Execute the WIC Overseas drafts to include issuing, receiving and processing the drafts.

· Provide technical support to the WIC Overseas offices to maintain and enhance the Participant Information Management System (PIMS).

· Provide Logistical Support services for all WIC Overseas offices to including the offerors proposed infrastructure and expedited items methodology

2.3.1.2 How the Offeror anticipated any major difficulties and problem areas, along with potential recommended approaches for their resolution.

2.3.1.3 Incoming Transition Plan. How the Offeror met and complied with the specific requirements established in sections 1.6.1.1 of the PWS.

2.3.2 Factor 2 – Program Management and Quality Control Approach. The program management and quality control approach will be evaluated to the degree to which the Offeror’s approach demonstrates:

2.3.2.1 A Program Management Plan that meets the Government’s requirements as described in PWS section 5.1.2 (Deliverable 17).

2.3.2.1.1 How the Offeror’s chain of command practices, management structure (to include identification of key personnel within the management structure), and lines of authority will contribute in a positive manner to ensuring completion of all tasks. This should emphasize schedule and risk management, communications, transparency, accounting, crosschecks, and subcontractor management on progress towards the completion of a technical refresh early enough to take necessary corrective actions, and flexibility in allocating resources based on Government priorities.

2.3.2.1.2 Corporate Teaming and Subcontractors (if applicable). The Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated to the degree in which each teaming members’ technical roles and related experience, to include subcontractor and consultant roles and related experience will benefit the Government and increase the likelihood of successful contract performance.

2.3.2.2 Level of Effort/Staffing Plan. The Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated to the degree in which the Level of Effort/Staffing Plan clearly describes the full range of staffing resources to include but not be limited to: resource planning processes/procedures, management methods, and other associated details that ensure sufficient qualified resources are recruited, staffed, and retained to meet the Government’s requirements in the PWS. The proposed approach shall demonstrate how the Offeror intends to manage unexpected turnover and how that plan minimizes the impact on contract performance. The proposed approach shall also demonstrate the degree in which the Offeror defines the primary skill set required for each role of their staffing plan.

2.3.2.2.1 The Offeror’s proposed Level of Effort/Staffing Plan will be evaluated to the degree to which the Offeror’s level of effort demonstrates the Offeror’s understanding of the PWS tasks relating to the proposed labor mix, proposed labor categories, and proposed labor hours, and that they are based on reasonable assumptions.

2.3.2.3 Quality Control. The QCP will be evaluated to the degree to which the Offeror’s QCP demonstrates: how each task will be evaluated for full performance and acceptability of work from the Offeror’s viewpoint. The QCP will be evaluated for how the Offeror will meet and comply with the quality standards established in the PWS to include the Offeror’s self-inspection plan and the proposed procedures to maintain quality, timeliness, responsiveness, and customer satisfaction.

2.3.3 Factor 3 – Past Performance. The Government will conduct a Past Performance evaluation of the Offeror’s Past Performance as well as that of its Subcontractors. The Offeror’s own Past Performance is significantly more important than the Past Performance provided for each Subcontractor. Past Performance consists of two aspects for evaluation, past performance relevancy and performance confidence; thus, the Offeror will be assigned two ratings for past performance. First, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s past performance narratives and information obtained through other sources (CPARS, FAPIIS, EDA, etc.) to determine how relevant recent efforts accomplished by the Offeror are to the solicitation requirement. Common aspects of relevance include similarity of service/support, complexity, magnitude of effort, dollar value, and contract type. Second, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s past performance references and information obtained through other sources (CPARS, FAPIIS, EDA, etc.) from the past three (3) years to determine the quality of work performed and assess the level of expectation that the Offeror can successfully perform the required effort.

2.3.4 Factor 4 – Key Personnel Experience. The Offeror will be evaluated to the degree in which the proposed Key Personnel effectively demonstrates: Key Personnel’s experience identical to, similar to or related to performing services contained within the PWS.

2.3.4.1 The Offeror’s proposed Key Personnel Experience will be evaluated to the degree to which the Offeror’s team of proposed Key Personnel has identical, similar, or related knowledge and experience with overseas Program Management and with DoD IT systems maintenance and enhancements.

· Program Manager

· Deputy Program Manager

· Director Information Management/Information Technology (IM/IT)

· Software Development and Evaluation Manager

2.3.4.2 Signed letters of intent for those individuals proposed as Key Personnel who are not current employees of the Offeror’s company.

2.4 Volume II – Business Proposal/Factor 5 – Price. Price will be evaluated separately from other non-price factors, and will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness.

2.4.1 Price will not be scored or rated. Evaluation of price will be performed using one or more of the price analysis techniques in FAR 15.404. Through these techniques the Government will determine whether prices are reasonable. Inasmuch as the best value offer will be determined through tradeoff analysis, the Government is not bound to award to the lowest evaluated price. On the other hand, if the Government determines that a higher rated proposal offers value-added features but at an unreasonable/unjustifiable incremental amount, it is not bound to award to a higher technically rated proposal.

2.4.1.1 The total evaluated price will be evaluated for reasonableness in terms of:

· Consistency with the technical proposal in that the pricing is consistent with and reflects the proposed staffing requirement for all years.

· The evaluated price will be the total of all the priced line items for the base period and all options (to include the amount associated with FAR 52.217-8).

· Unsubstantiated costs that are considered unreasonable, not fully supported, or both, may cause the overall technical evaluation to be adjusted in one or more of the non-cost/price evaluation factors.

2.4.1.2 Options. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

2.4.1.3 FAR 52.217-8 – Option to Extend Services: The Government will evaluate offers by establishing a Total Evaluated Price which will consist of the total price proposed for all base contract line items, option contract line items, and the amount associated with FAR 52.217-8. The amount evaluated under FAR 52.217-8 will be calculated using the rates proposed for the last option period, prorated six (6) months.

Rating Standards & Standard Definitions

Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method

Past Performance Relevancy Rating Standards for the Non-Price Proposal

Past Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Standards for the Non-Price Proposal

Best Value Tradeoff Evaluation Standard Definitions

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

Addendum to 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Items

THIS SECTION IS FOR SOLICITATION PURPOSES ONLY. THIS SECTION WILL BE PHYSICALLY REMOVED FROM ANY RESULTANT AWARD, BUT WILL BE DEEMED INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE. THIS ADDENDUM SUPPLEMENTS FAR 52.212-1.

Failure to comply with any of the instructions may result in a proposal being removed from further consideration.

1 INTRODUCTION.

1.1 This Request for Proposal (RFP) is in support of Defense Health Agency (DHA), TRICARE Overseas Program Office to perform Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) Overseas Program Support Services.

1.2 The Point of Contact for this RFP is Shannon Lertora, Shannon.P.Lertora.civ@mail.mil.

2 PROPOSAL CONTENT AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR PREPARATION OF PROPOSALS.

2.1 The instructions provided specify the format and content that offerors shall use in response to this solicitation. The intent is not to restrict the offerors in the manner in which they will perform their work but rather to ensure a certain degree of uniformity in the format of the responses for evaluation purposes. This requirement is a 100% set-aside for 8(a) small business concerns under North American Industry Classification Code (NAICS) 541611, Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services. The size standard for NAICS 541611 is $16.5 million. Proposals will only be accepted from contractors who are considered an 8(a) Small Business under NAICS 541611 on the date of proposal receipt. Offerors must submit a proposal that is legible and comprehensive enough to provide the basis for a sound evaluation by the Government. Information provided should be precise, factual, and complete. Legibility, clarity, completeness, and responsiveness are important. Proposals shall be in the form prescribed by, and shall contain a response to, each of the areas identified in the solicitation. Any proposal that does not meet the requirements of the solicitation may be determined to be substantially incomplete and may result in rejection of the offeror’s entire proposal from further consideration. Only one contract is anticipated to result from this RFP; however, the Government reserves the right to withdraw, modify, or eliminate various aspects of the requirement determined to be too costly or impractical prior to award.

2.2 The offeror shall include two separate volumes in response to the solicitation:

· Volume I* – Technical Proposal;

· Volume II – Business Proposal.

*No pricing information shall be included in Volumes I.

Two separate and complete volumes (listed above) shall be submitted by the closing date specified in this RFP. If any one proposal volume is received past the stated closing date specified in this RFP, the entire proposal will be considered late. No further consideration will be given to any Offeror who submits any of these volumes late in accordance with FAR 52.212-1(f).

2.2.1 Administrative Format Instructions. Both volumes should contain the following items in addition to the technical/descriptive data required by this RFP:

· Cover Page which includes the following:

· RFP Number;

· Offeror name, mailing address, and website address;

· CAGE Code, DUNS number and TIN;

· Date submitted and proposal expiration date;

· All of the above-cited information for each entity on the proposed team, if a team is proposed;

· Do you have a Government approved accounting system? If so, please identify the agency that approved the system;

· Type of Company (i.e., small business, 8(a), woman owned, veteran owned, etc.) as validated via the System for Award Management (SAM); and

· Company Point of Contact (POC), Phone and Email address.

· Table of contents which provides sufficient detail as to allow the important elements to be easily located; and

· Each page of each document should have a footer indicating the name of the Offeror, “page X of Y,” and the following legend “Source Selection Information: See FAR Part 3.104.”

2.2.2 Formatting. Proposal content shall be in Microsoft Office for Windows format (2007 or 1997-2003) or newer, either .doc or .docx file and/or searchable Adobe Acrobat (.pdf file), with one (1) inch margins all around, Times New Roman font of not less than ten (10) point font size.

2.2.3 Page Limits.

2.2.3.1 The Volume I – Technical Proposal is limited to twenty five (25) pages. Pages should be numbered consecutively throughout the document and not by sections. For any sections of a proposal with a defined page limit, pages exceeding the specified limit will be removed and not forwarded for evaluation. The following sections are not subject to the twenty five (25) page limit:

· Cover Page (Not to exceed one (1) page);

· Table of Contents ;

· Incoming Transition Plan (Not to exceed six (6) pages);

· Resumes for Key Personnel;

· Letters of Intent for Key Personnel (signed);

· Quality Control Plan (Not to exceed ten (10) pages);

· Program Management Plan (Not to exceed ten (10) pages);

· Past Performance (Not to exceed twelve (12) pages);

· Level of Effort/Staffing Plan; Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) Certification and OCI Avoidance or Mitigation Plan (if necessary); and

· Government Furnished Property (GFP)/Government Furnished Equipment (GFE)/Government Furnished Information (GFI) (If required – The Government does not anticipate that any contractor will need to utilize this exception to the page count).

2.2.3.2 The Volume II – Business Proposal does not have a page limit.

2.3 Volume I – Technical Proposal. The Offeror’s Technical Proposal shall clearly reflect the Offeror’s approach to execute and comply with the performance requirements identified in the PWS, regardless of the Government’s estimated effort. The Offeror’s Technical Proposal, including any supporting documentation, is to be clear and concise. Technical Proposals shall not include any pricing information. In accordance with file submission requirements given in this section, the Offeror shall submit a written Technical Proposal that effectively demonstrates the following:

2.3.1 Factor 1 – Technical Approach. The Offeror shall submit a written technical approach, which effectively demonstrates:

2.3.1.1 The overall ability to perform services in accordance with the PWS. This description should, at a minimum, specifically address the Offeror’s approach and ability to:

· A technical approach and overall ability to perform WIC Overseas program support as described in the PWS.

· Provide program support for all of the WIC Overseas offices to include marketing the program, providing nutrition education, and screening participants to determine eligibility.

· Execute the WIC Overseas drafts to include issuing, receiving and processing the drafts.

· Provide technical support to the WIC Overseas offices to maintain and enhance the Participant Information Management System (PIMS).

· Provide Logistical Support services for all WIC Overseas offices to include the offerors proposed infrastructure and expedited items methodology.

2.3.1.2 Any anticipated major difficulties and problem areas, along with potential recommended approaches for their resolution.

2.3.1.3 Provide an Incoming Transition Plan for sixty (60) days of incoming transition. The Incoming Transition Plan shall not exceed six (6) pages and is to be submitted as part of the Offeror’s Technical Proposal. This plan shall document how the Offeror will meet and comply with the specific requirements established in Section 1.6.1.1 of the PWS.

2.3.2 Factor 2 – Program Management and Quality Control Approach. The Offeror shall submit the following:

2.3.2.1 The Offeror shall submit a Program Management Plan in accordance with the requirements described in PWS section 5.1.2 (Deliverable 17).

2.3.2.1.1 The Offeror shall explain how their chain of command practices, management structure (to include identification of key personnel within the management structure), and lines of authority that will contribute in a positive manner to ensuring completion of all tasks. This should emphasize schedule and risk management, communications, transparency, accounting, crosschecks, and subcontractor management on progress towards the completion of a technical refresh early enough to take necessary corrective actions, and flexibility in allocating resources based on Government priorities.

2.3.2.1.2 Corporate Teaming and Subcontractors (if applicable). The Offeror shall describe each teaming members’ technical roles and related experience, to include subcontractor and consultant roles and related experience. The offeror will explain how these corporate teaming and subcontractors will benefit the Government and increase the likelihood of successful contract performance.

2.3.2.2 Level of Effort/Staffing Plan. The Level of Effort/Staffing Plan shall clearly describe the full range of staffing resources to include but not be limited to: resource planning processes/procedures, management methods, and other associated details that ensure sufficient qualified resources are recruited, staffed, and retained to meet the Government’s requirements in the PWS. The proposed approach shall demonstrate how the Offeror intends to manage unexpected turnover and how that plan minimizes the impact on contract performance. The Level of Effort/Staffing Plan shall detail the Offeror’s staffing plan and provide a definition of the primary skill set required for each role.

2.3.2.2.1 The level of effort proposed must be consistent with the proposed solution outlined in the Offeror’s Technical Proposal. The proposal shall fully document Offeror’s technical approach as it equates to the level of effort proposed with a matrix cross-mapping PWS tasks, the Offeror’s proposed approach(es), and proposed level of effort. The Offeror shall use a format similar to the following:

For reference, the Government has provided an estimated level of effort in the Addendum to 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Items, section 2.4.8, which is based on historical data.

2.3.2.3 Quality Control. The Offeror shall submit a Quality Control Plan (PWS 1.9.1, Deliverable 5) that effectively demonstrates: how each task will be evaluated for full performance and acceptability of work from the Offeror's viewpoint. The QCP shall document how the Offeror will meet and comply with the quality standards established in the PWS. At a minimum, the QCP shall include: a self-inspection plan and an outline of the procedures that the contractor will use to maintain quality, timeliness, responsiveness, and customer satisfaction.

2.3.3 Factor 3 – Past Performance. In accordance with file submission requirements given in this section, the Offeror shall submit the following:

2.3.3.1 The Offeror shall provide past performance narratives of at least and no more than three (3) contracts/task orders with the Federal Government and/or commercial customers that demonstrate recent and relevant past performance. Recent is defined as within the last three (3) years. Relevant is defined as work similar in complexity and magnitude of the work described in the PWS.

2.3.3.2 The Offeror shall also submit no more than one (1) past performance narrative for each Subcontractor proposed with the Federal Government and/or commercial customers that demonstrate recent and relevant past performance. Recent is defined as within the last three (3) years. Relevant is defined as work similar in complexity and magnitude of the work described in the PWS.

2.3.3.3 The past performance narrative shall include the following information:

· Project title;

· Description of the project;

· Contract number and, if applicable, task order number;

· Contract amount;

· Government Agency/Organization;

· Contracting Officer’s Representative’s name, email, and/or phone number;

· Contracting Officer’s name, email, and/or phone number;

· Current status, e.g., completed and/or if in progress, start and estimated completion dates;

· Contract type;

· Name of company being referenced;

· PWS paragraphs that the reference applies to; and

· A narrative of why the Offeror deems the reference to be relevant to this effort and how it relates to the PWS tasks specifically.

2.3.3.4 The above points of contact must be either Government personnel (civil service or military) or employees of private sector clients with whom the Offeror has provided services. Information provided by or for points of contact who work directly for the Offeror’s company, or indirectly (i.e. in a prime or subcontractor relationship), will NOT be considered relevant.

2.3.3.5 The Government will consider information obtained through other sources (Contractor Performance Assessment Report System (CPARS), Federal Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Document Access (EDA), etc.).