52.212-2 Evaluation—Commercial Products and Commercial Services.docx

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”.

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) Subfactor 1.e- Talent Pool Composition and Cross-Functional Governance Subfactor 1.f - Proposed Performance Work Statement (PWS) and Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) Subfactor 1.g – Transition Plan Factor 2 – OCI Mitigation Plan Factor 3 – Price

Administrative Volume:

The evaluation phases are structured as follows:

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

· Phase II: Evaluates the live Technical Demonstration (Subfactor 1.d) and Talent Pool Composition and Cross-Functional Governance (Subfactor 1.e).

· Phase III: Evaluates the proposed PWS and QASP (Subfactor 1.f), the complete Transition Plan (Subfactor 1.g), and the Price Proposal (Factor 3).

*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, Factor 1 (Technical) is the most important factor, followed in descending order of importance by Factor 2 (OCI Mitigation Plan). All subfactors under Factor 1 (Technical) are of equal importance. Factors 1 and 2 when combined, are significantly more important than Factor 3 (Price). While Factor 3 (Price) is the lowest-weighted factor, it will be evaluated for reasonableness, balance, and realism.

(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.

Factor 1 – Technical Subfactors (Phase I written submissions)

· Subfactor 1.a – Agile Implementation Plan The Government will evaluate the written Agile Implementation Plan (not to exceed 10 pages) on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis. To be rated Acceptable, the plan must demonstrate an executable baseline across all of the following:

· Cultural Change Management Strategy: Actionable methods for migrating the contractor's workforce to a cross-functional mindset. Furthermore, the strategy must explicitly outline the Offeror’s approach for driving cultural adoption and securing compliance from Government team members (e.g., coaching Government Product Owners, establishing trust in a backlog-driven environment, and managing resistance to Agile practices).

· Dynamic Resource Allocation Mechanics: Clear operational triggers, workflows, and triage mechanics for reallocating cross-functional teams to meet emergent, high-priority demands.

· Backlog Prioritization and Sizing Strategy: The plan must explicitly detail the Offeror's repeatable strategy and methodology for collaborating with Government Product Owners to assign priority weights (e.g., Weighted Shortest Job First (WSJF), Must have, Should have, Could have and Won’t have (MoSCoW) method), and Level of Effort (LOE) estimates (e.g., story points, t-shirt sizing) to incoming backlog tasks to ensure transparent planning and optimal capacity utilization.

· Manpower Resource Efficiency: Specific strategies to eliminate resource idling ("bench time") and leverage "T-shaped" skills to maximize capacity pool productivity. The plan must clearly articulate how these efficiency strategies translate into a tangible, measurable benefit to the Government (e.g., increased sprint velocity, cost-avoidance, or the ability to absorb surge requirements without requiring additional funding).

· Commercial Business Model Application: Practical translation of commercial practices (e.g., capacity-based delivery) into a compliant Government operational model.

· Subfactor 1.b – Key Personnel The Government will evaluate the qualifications of an Agile Program Manager (APM) on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis. To be rated Acceptable, the Offeror must:

· Propose the Mandated Agile Program Manager (APM): Propose a qualified individual to serve as the Agile Program Manager to lead the overall contract effort, manage the capacity pool, and interface with Government leadership. Submit a resume (not to exceed 3 pages each) for the APM, the resume must prove that the proposed individual meets or exceeds the education, certifications, and technical experience necessary to successfully perform their designated role. The APM must meet or exceed the following minimum qualifications:

· Experience: Minimum of five (5) years of demonstrated program management experience leading Agile teams or managing cross-functional, capacity-based professional services contracts in a federal or commercial environment, with at least three (3) of those years occurring within the past five (5) years. The resume should demonstrate experience scaling Agile practices across multiple teams while maintaining alignment with strategic goals.

· Certifications: Must possess a current, recognized advanced Agile-specific credential (e.g., PMI Agile Certified Practitioner [PMI-ACP], Certified Scrum Product Owner [CSPO], Certified Scrum Master [CSM], or SAFe Release Train Engineer [RTE]/SAFe Program Consultant [SPC]/SAFe Product Owner).

· Technical Competency: Proven, 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. The resume should 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.

· Clearance: Must be eligible for up to a Top Secret/SCI security clearance.

· 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 verify the Offeror’s cybersecurity compliance.

· The 110-Score Prerequisite for Government Data Release: To pass this entry gate and be eligible to receive the Government-provided data and Jira configuration/setting specifications, the Offeror 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.

· Failure to possess a verified score of 110 in SPRS on the date of submission will result in an immediate "Non-Responsive" determination, and they will ineligible to participate in the competition.

· This 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.

Factor 2 – OCI Mitigation Plan The Government will evaluate the written Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) Mitigation Plan. To be rated Acceptable, the plan must completely identify any potential or actual OCIs associated with the performance of this requirement and propose mitigation strategies that successfully avoid, neutralize, or mitigate those conflicts in accordance with FAR Subpart 9.5.

The OCI Mitigation Plan must specifically address and provide comprehensive mitigation strategies for the following three OCI categories:

· 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.

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

· 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.

(c) PHASE II EVALUATION All offerors that have been deemed “Compliant” and have not rescinded their proposals as a result of the “Advisory Down-Select notification” are eligible to participate in Phase II. Offerors must satisfy all Phase II Compliance Requirements and receive an "Acceptable" rating on all Phase II subfactors and factors to be considered competitive in Phase III.

Factor 1 – Technical Subfactors (Phase II evaluation)

· Subfactor 1.d – Technical Demonstration and Agile Scenario (Live Orals) This live technical scenario is strictly limited to five attendees from the Offeror’s team, and is anticipated to last 60 minutes. It will be executed entirely within a Contractor-provided Jira environment, utilizing Government-provided data and conforming exactly to Government-provided Jira configuration specifications. The Government will conduct a mandatory verification session with each Offeror prior to the live demonstration to confirm environment compliance. Offerors whose configuration specifications do not match those provided by the Government will be determined “Non-Compliant", and they will be disqualified from the competition.

The evaluation team will utilize a detailed, standardized scenario script and checklist to evaluate the demonstration. To be rated Acceptable, the Offeror must successfully execute the live scenario within the allotted time by demonstrating the following baseline capabilities:

· Orchestration and Responsiveness: Rapidly triaging the provided data and logically pivoting resources within the Contractor's configured Jira environment to address high-priority mission disruptions introduced by the Government.

· Jira Configuration Compliance and Execution: Operating efficiently within the specified Jira settings, workflows, and permissions without administrative failure or delays caused by environment misconfiguration.

· Work and Backlog Management: Effectively utilizing Jira to organize data, visualize workflow, maintain delivery flow, and clearly communicate status to Government stakeholders.

· Skill Fungibility: Demonstrating cross-functional capabilities among proposed personnel to handle the technical challenges without single points of failure.

· Subfactor 1.e – Talent Pool Composition and Cross-Functional Governance

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed workforce strategy and resource governance model. To maximize commercial flexibility, the Offeror is permitted to demonstrate this subfactor using any format, system, tool, or medium that best aligns with their existing corporate operations and commercial practices.

To receive an Acceptable rating, the demonstration must clearly define:

· T-Shaped Professional Standard: A practical methodology for recruiting, cross-training, and retaining personnel who possess deep core functional expertise combined with broad enterprise functional knowledge in adjacent domains.

· Resource Governance & Tracking: Clear internal processes, tools, or automated workflows used to track talent capabilities, assess skill matrices in real time, and fluidly reallocate resources in and out of tasks based on the prioritized backlog with minimal administrative lag.

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

Factor 1 – Technical Subfactors (Phase III submissions)

· Subfactor 1.f – The Government will evaluate the proposed PWS and QASP to ensure they provide a binding, performance-based framework that satisfies the Statement of Objectives (SOO). To be rated Acceptable, the Offeror’s proposed PWS and QASP must strictly adhere to the Government-furnished templates (provided as Attachments to this solicitation, respectively) without altering standard administrative terms, clauses, or structure. The evaluation will focus on:

· PWS Template Adherence & Completeness: The degree to which the Offeror adheres to the required PWS template structure and clearly, fully, and accurately incorporates all operational elements of the capacity based delivery model. This includes cross functional talent deployment, backlog execution supported by well defined ‘Done’ criteria, and the full scope of services required to execute the mission across the ST3 enterprise.

· QASP Template Adherence & Agile Metrics: Adherence to the required QASP template structure and the viability of the proposed Acceptable Quality Levels (AQLs) and performance metrics. Proposed metrics must fit within the template's guidelines and exclusively measure mission outcomes and workflow efficiency (e.g., Sprint Velocity, Cycle Time) rather than traditional "hours-billed" metrics.

· Subfactor 1.g – Transition Plan The Government will evaluate the Offeror's complete Transition Plan (not to exceed 5 pages) detailing the assumption of full operational responsibility on Acceptable/Unacceptable basis. To be rated Acceptable, the Transition Plan must detail a realistic, low-risk approach that includes specific risk mitigation strategies for all Offeror identified risks, as well as a clear schedule for onboarding and establishing a fully operational, cleared capacity pool as quickly as possible, but within a 90-day ramp-up period, following contract award. The plan must also define clear, measurable objectives and interim milestones, each no longer than 30 days, to demonstrate steady and accountable progress toward achieving full operational capacity.

Factor 3 – Price The Government will evaluate the Price Proposal—based on the Capacity/Sprint model established in the SOO—for completeness, reasonableness, balance, and realism.

To be considered complete and compliant, the Offeror must populate the Government-furnished Pricing Workbook (provided as Attachment to this solicitation) in accordance with the following requirements:

· Labor Category Cross-Reference (Mapping): The Offeror shall utilize the pricing workbook to map and cross-reference their proprietary commercial labor categories directly to the standard Labor Categories established by the Government.

· Service Contract Act (SCA) Compliance: The Offeror must explicitly identify which of their proposed labor categories are Exempt and which are Non-Exempt from the Service Contract Act (SCA). For all Non-Exempt categories, the Offeror must verify and demonstrate that proposed pricing is compliant with the applicable regional Wage Determinations per the SCA.

· Price Evaluation Criteria:

· Price Reasonableness: Proposed prices will be evaluated to ensure they are fair and reasonable, primarily determined through adequate price competition.

· Unbalanced Pricing: The Government will analyze proposals to determine whether they are materially unbalanced.

· Price Realism: The Government will conduct a price realism analysis to assess whether proposed capacity-based prices are sufficiently realistic to recruit, retain, and sustainably deploy the required highly skilled, technical talent. Pricing that deviates by more Pricing that deviates by more than 20% below the Independent Government Estimate (IGE) may trigger further scrutiny, and unrealistically low prices may lead to rejection.

(e) Non-Compliant Proposals: A proposal shall be deemed "Non-Compliant" (and will be excluded from further evaluation and competition) if it fails to submit sufficient, clear, and complete documentation for any evaluation factor or sub-factor identified herein, in accordance with the instructions provided in FAR Provision 52.212-1.

(End of provision)