Attachment 3 _ 52.212-2 Evaluation—Commercial Products and Commercial Services_20261008.docx

Attachment 03: FAR 52.212-2 Evaluation Criteria for Agile Professional Services Solicitation W900KK-26-R-A023 52.212-2 Evaluation—Commercial Products and Commercial Services.

As prescribed in 12.301(c), the Contracting Officer may insert a provision substantially as follows:

Evaluation—Commercial Products and Commercial Services (Nov 2021)

(a) The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible Offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and select the best-value Offeror using a Three-Phased evaluation approach under the commercial services procedures of FAR 52.212-2 “Evaluation – Commercial Products and Commercial Services”.

Volume 1 - Factor 1 – Technical Subfactor 1.a – Agile Implementation Plan Subfactor 1.b – Key Personnel Subfactor 1.c – Cybersecurity Compliance Gate Subfactor 1.d - Technical Demonstration and Agile Scenario (Live Orals) – Part 1 Subfactor 1.d.1 - Talent Pool Composition and Cross-Functional Governance – Part 2 Subfactor 1.e - Proposed Performance Work Statement (PWS), CDRLs and Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) Subfactor 1.f – Transition Plan Compliance Matrix (Not Evaluated) Volume 2 - Factor 2 – Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) Mitigation Plan Volume 3 - Factor 3 – Price Evaluation Procedures: The evaluation phases are structured as follows:

To receive an overall Acceptable rating for the Agile Professional Services Source Selection, an Offeror must submit all three sequential phases and receive an Acceptable rating on every single subfactor. A single Unacceptable rating at any point renders the entire technical submission Non-Compliant.

Multi-Phased Source Selection Procedures: The Government will utilize a multi-phased source selection procedure for the Agile Professional Services Source Selection. Offerors must submit sequential deliverables where each subsequent phase directly builds upon the previous submissions. A complete submittal consists of cumulative submissions from Phase I, Phase II, and Phase III.

During the evaluation, each individual subfactor assessed throughout these phases will receive a rating of either Acceptable or Unacceptable.

At the conclusion of Phase III, the Government will roll up all individual subfactor ratings to determine the final overall rating for each Factor under the Agile Professional Services Source Selection. To achieve an overall rating of Acceptable at the Factor Level, an Offeror must receive an Acceptable rating in every underlying subfactor. If any single subfactor is rated as Unacceptable at any point in the process, the entire Agile Professional Services Source Selection rating will be deemed Non-Compliant.

· Phase I: Evaluates the written Agile Implementation Plan (Subfactor 1.a), Key Personnel (Subfactor 1.b), Cybersecurity Compliance Gate (Subfactor 1.c) (including the National Institute of Standards and Technology Special Publication (NIST SP) 800-171 Rev 2 gate), and the OCI Mitigation Plan (Factor 2) on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis.

· Phase II: Evaluates the Technical Demonstration and Agile Scenario (Live Orals) – Part 1, (Subfactor 1.d) and Talent Pool Composition and Cross-Functional Governance – Part 2, (Subfactor 1.d) on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis.

· Phase III: Evaluates the proposed PWS, CDRLs, QASP (Subfactor 1.e), and the Transition Plan (Subfactor 1.f) on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis, and the Price Proposal (Factor 3) in accordance with FAR 15.404 – Proposal Analysis.

*NOTE: “Advisory Down-Select notification”: The Government will contact those who are “unlikely to be a viable competitor and recommend they withdraw” after Phase I, and subsequently Phase II, to recommend that they withdraw their proposal from the competition. No formal down-select will be conducted. All applicable Offerors may compete in all Phases if they choose to do so. Award will be made to the responsible Offeror whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements, is rated "Acceptable" across all non-price factors and subfactors and represents the best value to the Government.

Relative Order of Importance:

Among the evaluation factors, all factors are considered to be of equal importance (Factor 1 (Technical), Factor 2 (OCI Mitigation Plan), and Factor 3 (Price)). The prospective awardee shall be determined to be the Offeror with the lowest Total Evaluated Price (as calculated in the provided Excel Pricing Model) that has received an “Acceptable” rating under all other Factors.

(b) PHASE I EVALUATION The Government will contact those Offerors who do not achieve an “Acceptable” Rating on all elements under Phase I and are determined “unlikely to be a viable competitor and recommend they withdraw” before proceeding to Phase II.

VOLUME 1: FACTOR 1 – Technical Subfactors (Phase I written submissions)

i. Subfactor 1.a – Agile Implementation Plan The Government will evaluate the offeror’s Agile Implementation Plan on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis. To be rated Acceptable, the plan must demonstrate an executable operational approach to executing Agile Professional Services across the Capability Program Executive Simulation, Training, Test and Threat (CPE ST3) enterprise traceable to the Attachment 1 - Statement of Objectives. The offeror must demonstrate an executable baseline that clearly address all the following to be acceptable:

1. Cultural Change Management Strategy:

a. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s actionable methods for migrating to a cross-functional operating mindset and its approach for, driving cultural adoption and securing operational buy-in and compliance.

i. To be rated Acceptable: The Offeror provides actionable methods for migrating to a cross-functional operating mindset and its approach for driving cultural adoption and securing operational buy-in and compliance. The Offeror’s methods are realistic and can be executed.

ii. To be rated Unacceptable: The Offeror fails to provide actionable methods for migrating to a cross-functional operating mindset and its approach for driving cultural adoption and securing operational buy-in and compliance. The Offeror’s methods are unrealistic or cannot be executed.

2. Dynamic Resource Allocation Mechanics:

a. The Government will evaluate the Offeror's proposed operational triggers, workflows, and triage mechanics for reallocating cross-functional teams to meet emergent, high-priority demands across all CPE ST3 program offices and directorates for clear lines of communication and delegation of tasks.

i. To be rated Acceptable: The Offeror provides operational triggers, workflows, and triage mechanics to reallocate cross-functional teams to meet emergent, high-priority demands across all CPE ST3 program offices and directorates for clear lines of communication and delegation of tasks. The Offeror’s operational triggers, workflows, and triage mechanics are realistic and can be executed.

ii. To be rated Unacceptable: The Offeror fails to provide operational triggers, workflows, and triage mechanics to reallocate cross-functional teams to meet emergent, high-priority demands across all ST3 program offices and directorates for clear lines of communication and delegation of tasks. The Offeror’s operational triggers, workflows, and triage mechanics are unrealistic or cannot be executed.

3. Backlog Prioritization and Sizing Strategy:

a. The Government will evaluate the Offeror's plan to determine if it explicitly details a repeatable strategy and methodology for collaborating with Government Product Owners to assign priority weights, and Level of Effort (LOE) estimates to incoming backlog tasks to ensure transparent planning and optimal capacity utilization.

i. To be rated Acceptable: The Offeror provides a plan that explicitly details a repeatable strategy and methodology for collaborating with Government Product Owners to assign priority weights, and Level of Effort (LOE) estimates to incoming backlog tasks to ensure transparent planning and optimal capacity utilization. The Offeror’s plan is realistic and can be executed.

ii. To be rated Unacceptable: The Offeror fails to provide a plan that explicitly details a repeatable strategy and methodology for collaborating with Government Product Owners to assign priority weights, and Level of Effort (LOE) estimates to incoming backlog tasks to ensure transparent planning and optimal capacity utilization. The Offeror’s plan is unrealistic or cannot be executed.

4. Manpower Resource Efficiency:

a. The Government will evaluate the Offeror's specific strategies to eliminate resource idling ("bench time") and leverage multi-skilled professionals to maximize capacity pool productivity.

i. To be rated Acceptable: The Offeror provides strategies to eliminate resource idling ("bench time") and leverage multi-skilled professionals to maximize capacity pool productivity. The offeror’s strategies are realistic and can be implemented.

ii. To be rated Unacceptable: The Offeror fails to provide strategies to eliminate resource idling ("bench time") and leverage multi-skilled professionals to maximize capacity pool productivity. The offeror’s strategies are unrealistic or cannot be implemented.

b. The Government will evaluate how the Offeror's efficiency strategies translate into a tangible, measurable benefit to the Government.

i. To be rated Acceptable: The Offeror provides efficiency strategies that translate into a tangible, measurable benefit to the Government. The offeror’s strategies are realistic and can be implemented.

ii. To be rated Unacceptable: The Offeror fails to provide efficiency strategies that translate into a tangible, measurable benefit to the Government. The offeror’s strategies are unrealistic or cannot be implemented.

5. Commercial Business Model Application:

a. The Government will evaluate the Offeror's practical translation of commercial Agile practices into a compliant Government operational model.

i. To be rated Acceptable: The Offeror provides a practical translation of commercial practices into a compliant Government operational model. The offeror’s translation of commercial practices are realistic and can be implemented.

ii. To be rated Unacceptable: The Offeror fails to provide a practical translation of commercial practices into a compliant Government operational model. The offeror’s translation of commercial practices are unrealistic or cannot be implemented.

ii. Subfactor 1.b – Key Personnel The Government will evaluate the qualifications of an Agile Program Manager (APM). The proposed APM must meet or exceed the following minimum qualifications to receive and Acceptable Rating.

1. Experience:

a. The Government will evaluate whether the Offeror's proposed APM meets the minimum of five (5) years of demonstrated program management experience leading Agile teams or managing cross-functional, capacity-based professional services contracts in either a federal or commercial environment, with at least three (3) of those years occurring within the past five (5) years.

i. To be rated Acceptable: The Offeror’s proposed Key Personnel demonstrates a minimum of five (5) years of demonstrated program management experience leading Agile teams or managing cross-functional, capacity-based professional services contracts in either a federal or commercial environment, with at least three (3) of those years occurring within the past five (5) years.

ii. To be rated Unacceptable: The Offeror’s proposed Key Personnel fails to demonstrate a minimum of five (5) years of demonstrated program management experience leading Agile teams or managing cross-functional, capacity-based professional services contracts in either a federal or commercial environment, with at least three (3) of those years occurring within the past five (5) years.

b. The Government will evaluate the Offeror's proposed APM's resume for experience scaling Agile practices across multiple teams while maintaining alignment with strategic goals.

i. To be rated Acceptable: The Offeror provides a resume(s) that demonstrates experience scaling Agile practices across multiple teams while maintaining alignment with strategic goals.

ii. To be rated Unacceptable: The Offeror provides a resume(s) that fails to demonstrate experience scaling Agile practices across multiple teams while maintaining alignment with strategic goals.

2. Certifications:

a. The Government will evaluate if the Offeror's Key Personnel possesses a current, recognized advanced Agile-specific credential (e.g., Project Management Institute Agile Certified Practitioner (PMI-ACP), Certified Scrum Professional (CSP), Scaled Agile Framework (SAFe) Agilist, SAFe Practice Consultant (SPC), or equivalent advanced certification).

i. To be rated Acceptable: The Offeror's Key Personnel possess a current, recognized advanced Agile-specific credential (e.g., Project Management Institute Agile Certified Practitioner (PMI-ACP), Certified Scrum Professional (CSP), Scaled Agile Framework (SAFe) Agilist, SAFe Practice Consultant (SPC), or equivalent advanced certification). The Offeror shall submit a copy of the certificates for these credentials (not part of the 3 page resume).

ii. To be rated Unacceptable: The Offeror's Key Personnel fails to possess a current, recognized advanced Agile-specific credential (e.g., Project Management Institute Agile Certified Practitioner (PMI-ACP), Certified Scrum Professional (CSP), Scaled Agile Framework (SAFe) Agilist, SAFe Practice Consultant (SPC), or equivalent advanced certification). The Offeror shall submit a copy of the certificates for these credentials (not part of the 3 page resume).

3. Technical Competency:

a. The Government will evaluate the Offer's Key Personnel’s resume demonstrate hands-on experience utilizing enterprise Agile management tools (Jira at a minimum) to track capacity, manage backlog workflows, forecast delivery velocity, and generate flow metrics and dashboards.

i. To be rated Acceptable: The Offeror's Key Personnel resume demonstrate hands-on experience utilizing enterprise Agile management tools (Jira at a minimum) to track capacity, manage backlog workflows, forecast delivery velocity, and generate flow metrics and dashboards.

ii. To be rated Unacceptable: The Offeror's Key Personnel resume fails to demonstrate hands-on experience utilizing enterprise Agile management tools (Jira at a minimum) to track capacity, manage backlog workflows, forecast delivery velocity, and generate flow metrics and dashboards.

b. The Government will evaluate if Offeror's APM’s resume demonstrate specific metrics the proposed APM has historically used and how they used those metrics to pivot a failing project or improve team performance.

i. To be rated Acceptable: The Offeror's Key Personnel's resume demonstrate the specific metrics the proposed APM has historically used and how they used those metrics to pivot a failing project or improve team performance.

ii. To be rated Unacceptable: The Offeror's Key Personnel's resume fails to demonstrate the specific metrics the proposed APM has historically used and how they used those metrics to pivot a failing project or improve team performance.

4. Security Clearance:

a. The Government will evaluate the supporting documentation that substantiates the Offeror's Key Personnel is eligible to obtain a security clearance up to a Top Secret/SCI security clearance.

i. To be rated Acceptable: The Offeror's Key Personnel provides supporting documentation confirming the candidate is eligible for up to a Top Secret/SCI security clearance.

ii. To be rated Unacceptable: The Offeror's Key Personnel fails to provide supporting documentation confirming the candidate is eligible for up to a Top Secret/SCI security clearance.

iii. Subfactor 1.c - Cybersecurity Compliance Gate NIST SP 800-171 Revision 2 Assessment Score: Before the Offeror may participate in the live technical demonstration, have Phase II technical subfactors evaluated, or receive any Government provided data, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s cybersecurity compliance submission for the following capabilities:

Prerequisite for Government Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) Data Release: To pass this entry gate and be eligible to receive the Government-provided data and Jira configuration/setting specifications, the Offeror and their affiliates must have a self-certified NIST SP 800-171 Revision 2 assessment score of 110 (the maximum score indicating full implementation of all 110 security controls) active and posted in the DoD Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS) as of the Phase II entry date.

1. 110-Score Requirement:

a. The Government will evaluate the documentation/CAGE code confirming an active, self-certified National Institute of Standards and Technology Special Publication (NIST SP) 800-171 Revision 2 assessment score of 110 (indicating full implementation of all 110

i. To be rated Acceptable: The Offeror provides verifiable documentation/CAGE code confirming an active, self-certified National Institute of Standards and Technology Special Publication (NIST SP) 800-171 Revision 2 assessment score of 110 (indicating full implementation of all 110 security controls) active and posted in the DoD SPRS as of the Phase I submission date for the Offeror and joint venture members, affiliates, team members, and subcontractors.

ii. To be rated Unacceptable: The Offeror fails to provide verifiable documentation/CAGE code confirming an active, self-certified National Institute of Standards and Technology Special Publication (NIST SP) 800-171 Revision 2 assessment score of 110 (indicating full implementation of all 110 security controls) active and posted in the DoD SPRS as of the Phase I submission date for the Offeror and joint venture members, affiliates, team members, and subcontractors.

2. Flow-Down Mandate:

a. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror provides substantiating documentation demonstrating that the 110‑Score requirement applies to the Prime Offeror as well as all proposed subcontractors, teaming partners, or affiliates who will have access to Government‑provided data or participate in contract performance.

i. To be rated Acceptable: The Offeror provides substantiating documentation that their 110-Score requirement applies to the Prime Offeror, and all proposed subcontractors, teaming partners, or affiliates who will have access to Government-provided data or participate in contract performance.

ii. To be rated Unacceptable: The Offeror fails to provide substantiating documentation that their 110-Score requirement applies to the Prime Offeror, and all proposed subcontractors, teaming partners, or affiliates who will have access to Government-provided data or participate in contract performance.

3. Notice of Non-Compliance: Failure to possess a verified score of 110 in SPRS on the date of submission will result in an immediate "Non-Compliant" determination, and the Offeror will be ineligible to receive the Government data to participate. Proposals deemed non-compliant at this stage will be rejected in their entirety, as further evaluation is not possible.

VOLUME 2: FACTOR 2 – OCI Mitigation Plan The Government will evaluate the written Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) Mitigation Plan. The plan must specifically address and provide comprehensive mitigation strategies for the following three (3) OCI categories as well as the information in Section 8 of the APS_Combined Synopsis Solicitation. The OCI Mitigation Plan must specifically address and provide comprehensive mitigation strategies for the following three OCI categories as well as the information in Section 8 of the APS_Combined Synopsis :

1. Unequal Access to Information: Occurs when a contractor has access to non-public, sensitive, or proprietary information as part of its performance of a Government contract, and that information provides the contractor with an unfair competitive advantage in a later competition.

2. Biased Ground Rules: Occurs when a contractor, in the course of performance, drafts or influences specifications, Statements of Objectives (SOOs), Statements of Work (SOWs), Program Objective Memorandum (POM), or acquisition plans for a future procurement, thereby biasing the competition in favor of its own capabilities, tools, or those of an affiliate.

3. Impaired Objectivity: Occurs when a contractor’s work under one Government contract requires it to evaluate its own products, services, or performance (or those of a competitor, teammate, or affiliate) on another Government contract, thereby impairing its ability to render impartial, objective advice.

i. To be rated Acceptable: The Offeror’s plan provides a complete and logical identification of all potential or actual OCIs relevant to the requirement. The Offeror’s plan addresses all three required OCI categories: Unequal Access to Information, Biased Ground Rules, and Impaired Objectivity. The Offeror’s plan provides comprehensive and feasible mitigation strategies for each category that demonstrate the offeror’s ability to avoid, neutralize, or mitigate conflicts. The Offeror’s plan clearly explains processes, controls, firewalls, organizational structures, staffing approaches, or other mechanisms used to prevent OCI risks. The Offeror’s demonstrates that the mitigation strategies are consistent with FAR Subpart 9.5. The Offeror’s plan adequately incorporates all required information referenced in Section 8 of the APS Combined Synopsis Solicitation. The Offeror’s plan contains no internal contradictions or missing elements that would prevent successful execution of mitigation measures.

ii. To be rated Unacceptable: The Offeror’s plan fails to identify potential or actual OCIs associated with this requirement. Omits one or more of the three required OCI categories (Unequal Access to Information, Biased Ground Rules, Impaired Objectivity). Provides mitigation strategies that are incomplete, infeasible, or inconsistent with FAR Subpart 9.5. Does not demonstrate adequate measures or controls to avoid, neutralize, or mitigate OCI risks. Fails to include the required information described in Section 8 of the APS Combined Synopsis Solicitation. Presents conflicting, vague, or insufficient mitigation mechanisms that leave residual OCI concerns. Demonstrates that the offeror would be unable to perform without creating an unmitigated OCI.

(c) PHASE II EVALUATION The Government will evaluate Phase II submission on an Acceptable / Unacceptable basis. The Offeror must receive an "Acceptable" rating on both parts to be determined “Compliant”. If an Offeror receives an Unacceptable rating in any area, that Offeror will be determined “Non-Compliant”, but the Offeror may choose to participate further in the competition at their own discretion.

Mandatory Verification Session: Prior to the oral presentation, the Government will conduct a mandatory Jira verification session with each Offeror to confirm environment compliance. Offerors whose configuration specifications do not match those provided by the Government will be determined “Non-Compliant”, but the Offeror may choose to participate further in the competition at their own discretion.

Evaluation of Part 1: The Oral Presentation (Subfactor 1.d)

iv. Subfactor 1.d – Technical Demonstration and Agile Scenario & Talent Pool Composition and Cross-Functional Governance – Part 1.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Oral Presentation based upon how clearly and comprehensively it defines the Offeror’s approach to the following areas:

1. Resource Allocation & Dispersed Support (Subfactor 1.a/1.d):

a. The Government will evaluate the Offeror's detailed strategy describing how it will provide appropriate and sufficient capacity to fulfill the requirements of the Government’s SOO and the Offeror’s proposed Agile Implementation Plan. The Government will evaluate how the Offeror addresses its approach for resourcing geographically dispersed locations to ensure uninterrupted, synchronized mission support.

i. To be rated Acceptable: The Offeror provides a detailed and feasible strategy demonstrating how appropriate and sufficient capacity will be provided to meet the requirements of the Government’s SOO and well-defined strategy for implementing the Offeror’s Phase 1 Agile Implementation Plan. The Offeror shall demonstrates a credible method for resourcing geographically dispersed locations, including measures to ensure uninterrupted, synchronized support across all sites.

To be rated Unacceptable: The Offeror fails to provide a detailed and feasible strategy demonstrating how appropriate and sufficient capacity will be provided to meet the requirements of the Government’s SOO and fails to provide a well-defined strategy for implementing the Offeror’s Phase 1 Agile Implementation Plan. The Offeror fails to demonstrate a credible method for resourcing geographically dispersed locations, including measures to ensure uninterrupted, synchronized support across all sites.

2. Workforce Management & Backfill Speed (Subfactor 1.a/1.d):

a. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s plan to recruit and manage a qualified, large and geographically dispersed workforce. The Government will evaluate whether the plan provides substantiated details describing specific procedural pipeline used to backfill vacant positions as expeditiously as possible, to prevent any degradation in sprint velocity and mission support.

i. To be rated Acceptable: The Offeror provides a comprehensive and substantiated plan that clearly describes a feasible, well‑defined, and timely procedural pipeline for recruiting, sustaining, and backfilling a qualified, large, and geographically dispersed workforce. The plan demonstrates adequate measures to ensure that vacant positions are filled rapidly enough to avoid degradation of sprint velocity or mission support.

ii. To be rated Unacceptable: The Offeror fails to provide sufficient, substantiated detail describing the plan or backfill pipeline ; or the described process is unclear, incomplete, infeasible, or does not demonstrate the ability to fill vacant positions in a timely manner. The plan lacks credible measures to prevent degradation of sprint velocity or mission support.

3. Retention & Turnover Mitigation (Subfactor 1.a/1.b):

a. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s description of the strategies and incentives proposed to retain employees and reduce turnover throughout contract performance.

i. To be rated Acceptable: The Offeror provides clear, substantiated, and feasible strategies and incentives that are likely to retain employees and reduce turnover. The retention approach is realistic and demonstrates credible methods and controls for maintaining workforce stability and continuity of operations. The strategies described are realistic.

ii. To be rated Unacceptable: The Offeror fails to provide clear, substantiated, and feasible strategies and incentives that are likely to retain employees and reduce turnover. The retention approach is not realistic and does not demonstrate credible methods and controls for maintaining workforce stability and continuity of operations. The strategies described are not realistic.

4. Corporate Training Investment Protection (Subfactor 1.a/1.d):

a. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach for providing corporate‑funded, domain‑specific training to ensure employees remain highly skilled assets. The evaluation will assess the extent to which the Offeror clearly and explicitly demonstrates that all proposed training is fully funded by the company and does not constitute a responsibility or expense of the Government.

i. To be rated Acceptable: The Offeror provides a clear, substantiated, and feasible approach for delivering corporate‑funded, domain‑specific training. The Offeror explicitly demonstrates that all training costs are borne by the company and that no portion of the training constitutes a Government expense. The approach credibly supports workforce skill sustainment and aligns with contract performance needs

ii. To be rated Unacceptable: The Offeror fails to provide sufficient detail or substantiation regarding corporate‑funded, domain‑specific training. The Offeror does not clearly demonstrate that training will be fully funded by the company, or the description implies reliance on Government resources or cost responsibility. The approach is unclear, infeasible, or does not credibly ensure employees remain highly skilled

5. Operations & Multi-Level Interactions (Subfactor 1.a/1.d) :

a. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach for conducting daily APS operations. The evaluation will assess the extent to which the Offeror provides clear, substantiated, and actionable descriptions of the specific processes, task assignments, and communication flows across Organizational (CPE ST3), Project Manager/Lead (PM/PL), Product Manager/Lead (PdM/PdL), and Team levels that enable responsive and effective execution.

i. To be rated Acceptable: The Offeror describes a clear, detailed, and feasible daily APS operations approach. The Offeror provides well‑defined processes, roles, responsibilities, and communication flows across CPE ST3, PM/PL, PdM/PdL, and Team levels. The described structure credibly supports responsive and effective execution of APS operations and demonstrates the Offeror’s ability to maintain coordination and operational tempo.

ii. To be rated Unacceptable: The Offeror fails to provide sufficient detail, clarity, or substantiation regarding daily APS operations. Processes, task assignments, or communication flows are incomplete, unclear, or infeasible. The approach does not demonstrate the Offeror’s ability to execute APS operations responsively or effectively, or fails to show adequate coordination across CPE ST3, PM/PL, PdM/PdL, and Team levels.

Evaluation of Part 2: Jira Technical Demonstration (Subfactors 1.d)

v. Subfactor 1.d – Technical Demonstration and Agile Scenario and Talent Pool Composition and Cross-Functional Governance – Part 2.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s demonstration of its contractor‑provided Jira environment during the final 30 minutes of the oral presentation. The evaluation will assess the extent to which the Offeror effectively uses live navigation and active operations within its Jira environment to demonstrate the following areas:

1. Cross-Functional Governance & Tool Utilization (Subfactor 1.d):

a. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s presentation of its “Talent Pool Composition and Cross‑Functional Governance” approach. The evaluation will consider the extent to which the Offeror clearly demonstrates, during the oral presentation, how the contractor‑provided Jira environment is actively used to manage cross‑functional resources and track talent capabilities in real time. The Government will assess whether the demonstrated live use of the tool validates the methodology proposed in the Offeror’s Phase I Submission.

i. To be rated Acceptable: The Offeror presents a clear, comprehensive, and feasible “Talent Pool Composition and Cross‑Functional Governance” approach. Through live navigation and active use of its contractor‑provided Jira environment, the Offeror effectively demonstrates real‑time tracking of talent capabilities and active management of cross‑functional resources. The demonstration aligns with and substantiates the methodology proposed in the Phase I Submission, providing confidence in the Offeror’s ability to employ the tool during contract performance.

ii. To be rated Unacceptable: The Offeror fails to provide a clear or substantiated presentation of its “Talent Pool Composition and Cross‑Functional Governance” approach. The live demonstration of the contractor‑provided Jira environment is incomplete, unclear, not functional, or does not validate the methodology proposed in the Phase I Submission. The Jira environment is not effectively used to demonstrate real‑time tracking of talent capabilities or management of cross‑functional resources, resulting in insufficient evidence of the Offeror’s ability to meet performance requirements.

2. Multi-Level Dashboards & Metrics (Subfactor 1.d):

a. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s demonstrated approach for utilizing the Jira environment to organize data, visualize workflow, and clearly communicate status through informative dashboards configured for the CPE, PM/PL, and PdM/PdL levels.

i. To be rated Acceptable: The Offeror clearly demonstrates effective use of the Jira environment to organize data, visualize workflow, and communicate status. Dashboards for the CPE, PM/PL, and PdM/PdL levels are well‑structured, functional, and provide meaningful, real‑time insight into progress, issues, and performance. The approach reflects a mature capability to tailor dashboards to multiple management tiers and supports transparent and responsive execution.

ii. To be rated Unacceptable: The Offeror fails to demonstrate sufficient or effective use of the Jira environment for organizing data, visualizing workflow, or communicating status. Dashboards for the CPE, PM/PL, and PdM/PdL levels are incomplete, nonfunctional, unclear, or fail to convey meaningful insight. The approach does not provide confidence in the Offeror’s ability to use dashboards to support multi‑level management or responsive execution.

3. Agile Implementation Approaches (Subfactor 1.d):

a. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s analysis of the Government‑provided data and the Offeror’s presentation of its top three recommended approaches for improving the effectiveness of APS services. The evaluation will assess the extent to which the Offeror clearly demonstrates how each recommended change would be implemented within the Jira environment.

i. To be rated Acceptable: The Offeror provides a clear, well‑supported analysis of the Government‑provided data and presents three feasible, relevant, and impactful approaches for improving APS service effectiveness. The Offeror effectively demonstrates, through live use of the Jira environment, how each recommended change would be implemented. The demonstration shows a mature understanding of Jira configuration capabilities and credibly supports the practicality of each proposed improvement.

ii. To be rated Unacceptable: The Offeror’s analysis of the Government‑provided data is unclear, incomplete, or unsupported. The Offeror fails to present three meaningful approaches to improving APS services or does not adequately demonstrate how the recommended changes would be implemented in Jira. The demonstration is insufficient, nonfunctional, or fails to provide confidence that the Offeror can execute the proposed improvements within the Jira environment.

4. Live Scenario & Change Management (Subfactor 1.d):

a. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s ability to respond to scenario injects presented at the 20‑minute mark during the final 30 minutes of the Oral Presentation. The evaluation will assess the Offeror’s capability to conduct real‑time triage of multiple operational changes, maintain continuity of operations, and apply agile change‑management practices to ensure uninterrupted contractual performance. For each scenario inject, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s response in relation to the applicable areas listed below. The Offeror’s response may address one area, multiple areas, or all areas, as relevant to the specific inject:

· Entering, sizing, and triaging requirements generated by the scenario inject.

· Reprioritizing the backlog and adjusting sprint or workflow plans.

· Orchestrating technical and functional resources.

· Executing effective HR actions, including access management, onboarding/offboarding, and labor resource reassignment.

· Demonstrating compliance with labor category qualification and hiring requirements.

· Describing and demonstrating continuity of operations measures.

· Explaining and demonstrating how uninterrupted performance is maintained through communication protocols, risk mitigation, technical remediation, and workflow stabilization.

i. To be rated Acceptable: The Offeror provides clear, timely, and effective responses to scenario injects. The demonstrated actions reflect a mature capability to conduct real‑time triage, maintain continuity of operations, and apply agile change‑management practices. The Offeror’s responses appropriately address the applicable evaluated areas, demonstrating feasible, well‑structured, and credible methods for ensuring uninterrupted contractual performance.

ii. To be rated Unacceptable: The Offeror’s responses to scenario injects are unclear, insufficient, delayed, or ineffective. The demonstration does not show the ability to conduct real‑time triage, maintain continuity of operations, or apply agile change‑management practices. The responses fail to adequately address the applicable evaluated areas or do not provide confidence in the Offeror’s ability to ensure uninterrupted contractual performance.

Post-Demonstration Clarifications: Immediately following the 60-minute Technical Demonstration, the Government may conduct a Clarification Phase not to exceed 30 minutes. In accordance with FAR 15.306(a), these exchanges will be strictly limited to clarifying minor irregularities, ambiguities, or clerical errors observed during the live demonstration or within the submitted presentation materials.

Under no circumstances will the Clarification Phase be used to permit the Offeror to cure material omissions, correct technical failures on the Pass/Fail checklist, or revise any portion of their proposed technical approach, staffing model, or pricing. The Government will not enter into formal discussions or negotiations during this phase. Failures to perform the required live Jira actions during the designated 60-minute demonstration window cannot be corrected during the Clarification Phase and will result in a rating of Unacceptable."

(d) PHASE III EVALUATION All Offerors that have been deemed “Compliant” and have not rescinded their proposals because of the “Advisory Down-Select notification” are eligible to submit final proposals for Phase III.

VOLUME 1: FACTOR 1 – Technical Subfactors (Phase III submissions)

vi. Subfactor 1.e – Proposed Performance Work Statement (PWS), CDRLs and Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP)

PWS Evaluation Criteria The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s binding, contractor‑developed Performance Work Statement (PWS). The evaluation will assess the extent to which the PWS translates the Government’s requirements into a single, comprehensive, and enforceable contract document. The Government will also evaluate whether the PWS is organized using the Government‑provided PWS Template and incorporates all tasks, plans, approaches, and commitments detailed in the three required source documents:

Statement of Objectives (SOO):

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s contractor‑developed PWS converts every performance objective, desired end‑state, and operating constraint from all sections of the Government’s Statement of Objectives into clear, measurable, and enforceable contractual requirements and deliverables (CDRLs).

i. To be rated Acceptable: The PWS fully and accurately translates all performance objectives, desired end‑states, and operating constraints from the Statement of Objectives into measurable, enforceable requirements and clearly defined CDRLs. The PWS demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of the Government’s objectives and provides traceability from the objectives to the contractual requirements.

ii. To be rated Unacceptable: The PWS fails to translate one or more performance objectives, desired end‑states, or operating constraints into measurable, enforceable requirements or CDRLs. The translation is incomplete, inaccurate, unclear, or lacks traceability to the Statement of Objectives, resulting in an insufficient or unenforceable contract document.

1. Phase I Agile Implementation Plan:

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s contractor‑developed PWS integrates and codifies all tasks, plans, and approaches detailed in the Offeror’s written Phase I submission. The evaluation will assess whether the PWS effectively transforms the proposed methodology into clear, binding, and enforceable contractual commitments.

i. To be rated Acceptable: The PWS fully incorporates and codifies all tasks, plans, and approaches from the Offeror’s Phase I submission. The proposed agile methodology is clearly translated into binding contractual requirements, demonstrating coherence, completeness, and traceability. The PWS reflects a comprehensive understanding of the Offeror’s proposed Phase I approach and provides enforceable commitments that support contract performance.

ii. To be rated Unacceptable: The PWS fails to sufficiently incorporate or codify tasks, plans, or approaches from the Offeror’s Phase I submission. The agile methodology is not clearly translated into enforceable contractual commitments, or significant elements are omitted, unclear, or inconsistent. The submission does not provide confidence that the Offeror can execute its proposed Phase I approach under the contract.

2. Phase II Oral Presentation:

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s contractor‑developed PWS incorporates all tasks, plans, and approaches detailed in the Offeror’s Phase II Oral Presentation. The evaluation will assess whether the PWS effectively formalizes all written and verbal commitments made during the presentation into clear, unambiguous, and enforceable contractual requirements.

i. To be rated Acceptable: The PWS fully incorporates and formalizes all tasks, plans, and approaches presented during the Offeror’s Phase II Oral Presentation. All written and verbal commitments are clearly translated into enforceable contractual requirements. The PWS demonstrates completeness, consistency, and traceability, providing confidence that the Offeror will perform in accordance with the commitments made during the oral presentation.

ii. To be rated Unacceptable: The PWS does not fully incorporate or formalize all tasks, plans, or approaches from the Offeror’s Phase II Oral Presentation. Written and verbal commitments are omitted, unclear, inconsistently translated, or not captured as enforceable requirements. The PWS lacks completeness or traceability, resulting in insufficient confidence that the Offeror will perform in accordance with its oral presentation commitments.

CDRL Evaluation Criteria The Government will evaluate the Offeror-completed DD Form 1423, Contract Data Requirements Lists (CDRLs), to determine whether all required data deliverables are fully identified, complete, and accurately aligned with the proposed Performance Work Statement (PWS). The evaluation will assess whether each CDRL clearly identifies the required deliverable and provides an explicit, traceable cross-reference to the applicable PWS task or section.

1. Completeness & PWS Traceability:

The Government will evaluate whether the Offeror has completed and submitted all four required CDRLs and the extent to which each DD Form 1423 is accurately and explicitly mapped to its corresponding PWS reference. The evaluation will assess completeness, traceability, and alignment between the CDRLs and the PWS.

i. To be rated Acceptable: The Offeror submits all four required CDRLs, and each DD Form 1423 is clearly, accurately, and explicitly mapped to the correct corresponding PWS reference. The submission demonstrates full traceability between the PWS and the CDRLs, ensuring enforceability, completeness, and alignment with contractual requirements

ii. To be rated Unacceptable: The Offeror fails to submit all four required CDRLs, or one or more DD Form 1423s lack accurate or explicit mapping to their corresponding PWS references. The submission is incomplete, unclear, or does not demonstrate sufficient traceability between the PWS and the CDRLs, resulting in ambiguity or unenforceability.

2. Content Alignment:

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the content and description of each CDRL directly and fully align with the requirements and deliverables specified in the corresponding PWS task. The evaluation will focus on clarity, accuracy, and consistency between the CDRLs and their associated PWS requirements.

i. To be rated Acceptable: Each CDRL’s content and description clearly, directly, and fully align with the requirements and deliverables defined in the corresponding PWS task. The submission demonstrates accurate mapping, consistency, and full alignment, ensuring the CDRLs are enforceable and traceable to the PWS

ii. To be rated Unacceptable: One or more CDRLs fail to align with the requirements or deliverables specified in the corresponding PWS task. Content is incomplete, inconsistent, or unclear, resulting in inadequate traceability or enforceability between the CDRLs and the PWS.

QASP Evaluation Criteria The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s comprehensive QASP to determine whether it clearly describes the objective methods the Government will use to monitor contractor performance and verify that services are delivered in accordance with the PWS. The evaluation will assess the extent to which the QASP is structured to directly address the five evaluation gates outlined in FAR 52.212‑2 of this solicitation.

1. Objective Standards & Numerical Acceptable Quality Levels (AQLs):

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s QASP to determine whether it includes a detailed Performance Requirements Summary (PRS) Table that establishes specific, measurable, and numerical Acceptable Quality Levels (AQLs) for all core tasks identified in the PWS. The Government will assess the completeness, clarity, and practicality of the PRS Table, including the required columns for PWS Task Reference, Performance Standard, AQL (as a numerical threshold), Surveillance Method, and Remedies/Disincentives.

i. To be rated Acceptable: The QASP contains a complete and well‑structured PRS Table with specific, measurable, and numerical AQLs for all core PWS tasks. Each row clearly includes the required columns: PWS Task Reference, Performance Standard, numerical AQL, Surveillance Method, and Remedies/Disincentives. The PRS Table demonstrates a practical and enforceable approach to performance monitoring, enabling objective Government surveillance and clear accountability.

ii. To be rated Unacceptable: The QASP does not provide a complete or adequately detailed PRS Table. One or more core PWS tasks lack specific, measurable, or numerical AQLs, or required columns are missing, unclear, or incomplete. The PRS Table does not provide sufficient information for objective performance monitoring or fails to establish enforceable standards, resulting in inadequate support for Government surveillance.

2. Automated Surveillance Integration via Live Dashboard & Portal:

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s QASP establishes a primary surveillance method that provides continuous Government access to the contractor‑provided live dashboard and knowledge management portal. The evaluation will assess whether the proposed surveillance approach enables real‑time monitoring of contractor performance and supports verification that services are delivered in accordance with the PWS.

i. To be rated Acceptable: The QASP clearly establishes a primary surveillance method that provides continuous Government access to the contractor‑provided live dashboard and knowledge management portal. The approach enables real‑time, automated monitoring of contractor performance, supports timely identification of issues, and aligns with PWS requirements. The submission demonstrates a practical and reliable method for ongoing Government oversight.

ii. To be rated Unacceptable: The QASP does not establish continuous Government access to a contractor‑provided live dashboard and knowledge management portal, or the method is unclear, incomplete, or nonfunctional. The proposed surveillance approach does not support real‑time monitoring or fails to provide confidence that the Government can effectively oversee contractor performance in accordance with the PWS.

3. Workforce Availability & Rapid Backfill Surveillance:

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s QASP establishes a binding surveillance availability metric across the workforce, including dedicated Key Personnel. The evaluation will assess whether the QASP defines a specific Acceptable Quality Level (AQL) and a clear surveillance method to ensure all positions are filled with fully qualified, Labor Category (LCAT)‑compliant personnel within 20 calendar days of vacancy.

i. To be rated Acceptable: The QASP establishes a clear, binding workforce availability metric that applies across all personnel, including Key Personnel. The submission defines a specific, measurable AQL and provides a practical surveillance method that ensures all vacant positions are filled with fully qualified, LCAT‑compliant personnel within 20 calendar days. The plan demonstrates credible, enforceable processes for maintaining workforce continuity and meeting contractual staffing requirements.

ii. To be rated Unacceptable: The QASP does not establish a binding workforce availability metric, lacks a specific or measurable AQL, or fails to define a clear surveillance method. The plan does not ensure that vacant positions will be filled with fully qualified, LCAT‑compliant personnel within 20 calendar days, or the approach is infeasible, incomplete, or not enforceable. The submission does not provide confidence in the Offeror’s ability to maintain required staffing levels.

4. Financial Accuracy & FMS SLIN Segregation Auditability:

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s QASP to determine whether it establishes a specific Acceptable Quality Level (AQL) of 95% financial accuracy…