A07_Attachment_6_-_Section_L_&_M.docx

A. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION (Section L)

Instructions for Submission:

1. The Offeror’s proposal must include all information requested, and must be submitted in accordance with these instructions. Any Offeror who submits an incomplete package may be considered unacceptable. The offer shall be compliant with the requirements as stated in the Performance Statement of Work.

2. Content of the proposal shall provide clear, concise convincing documentary evidence in support of any statements relating to the promised performance. The Government does not desire excess verbiage, unnecessary and elaborate brochures, or lengthy, repetitious, disorganized presentations beyond that sufficient to present a complete and clear proposal. Proposals must not merely parrot back performance requirements, but rather must provide convincing evidence that Offeror can actually fulfill performance requirements.

3. Content Requirements. All information shall be confined to the appropriate volume. Information included in the incorrect volume will not be evaluated. Each volume of the proposal shall consist of a Title Page, Table of Contents (no more than two levels e.g. 1.1, 1.2), Summary Section and the Narrative discussion. The Summary Section shall contain a brief abstract of the volume. Proprietary information shall be clearly marked. The Title Page and Table of Contents do not count towards page limitation for each volume.

4. The Government may evaluate offers and award a contract without discussions. Therefore, the Offeror’s initial offer should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if later determined by the Contracting Officer to be necessary. The Government may reject any or all offers if such action is in the public interest, and waive informalities and minor irregularities in the offers received.

5. No pricing shall be in any volumes other than Factor V Price. Proposals that fail to separate the price factor may be determined unacceptable and may not be considered for award.

6. The Government may incorporate portions of the contractor’s proposal into the contract.

7. Each factor shall be submitted as a separate volume. Proposals shall adhere to the following page count limitations. Excess pages will be removed from the back of each section and will NOT be read or evaluated.

Proposal Volumes

8. Offerors shall submit their proposals electronically, using the FedBizOps website. The proposal shall be submitted in six (6) volumes. Each file submitted must be labeled with a Volume number, Title/Description, and company name—abbreviated as desired/necessary is acceptable. Each Volume shall be independent. Information relating to a specific factor shall not include references to other volumes or information contained to support other factors. The Title Page and Table of Contents do not count towards page limitation for each volume.

9. Pages that exceed the required page limitations will not be evaluated. Additional pages over the maximum allowed will be removed or not read and will not be evaluated by the Government. Any portions of proposal volumes that exceed the page limitations in the table will not be evaluated. For example, if the Technical Factor volume totaled 12 pages and the page limitation for this factor is 10 pages, only pages 1-10 will be evaluated, while pages 11 and 12 will not be considered/ evaluated. Documents shall use the following page setup parameters:

Margins – Top, Bottom, Left, Right – 1” Gutter – 0” From Edge – Header, Footer 0.5” Page Size, Width – 8.5” Page Size, Height – 11” Font – 12 point Arial or Time Roman required.

Each paragraph shall be separated by at least one blank line. Tables and illustrations may use a reduced font size no less than 8-point and may be landscape. All volumes and plans shall include pagination with the exception of any excluded pages.

Volumes Description

Volume 1 – Executive Summary:

Offerors shall provide a Title Page, a Table of Contents, Summary Section, and a Narrative Discussion. The Narrative Discussion must include an overview of the Offerer’s ability to meet the requirements of the PWS. This volume shall include the following: (1) Request for Proposal number; (2) Company’s Name, Cage Code, and Tax ID number; (3) proposal titled Army Response Team; (4) point of contact and alternate, including last name, first name, street address, city, state, zip code, telephone, and electronic mail; (5) date proposal submitted; (6) proposal expiration date (valid minimum 120 calendar days); (7) signed Standard Form/Solicitation; (8) Organizational Conflict of Interest Identification and Risk Mitigation Plan (9) System for Award Management (SAM) record print out of the company/Offeror ’s “Core Data.” (10) Provide a matrix of all proposed subcontractors that includes information from items 2 and 4 of this paragraph. (11) A list of all assumptions or contingent conditions with a narrative describing the rational for them. (12) Completed Section K Representations and Certifications.

Organizational Conflict of Interest Identification and Risk Mitigation Plan: The offeror shall conduct due diligence and submit with their proposal an Identification and Mitigation Plan. This plan shall identify all facts that a reasonably prudent person would consider relevant in determining whether a potential conflict of interest currently exists or might arise under the performance of this contract. The offeror shall identify at a minimum all current contracts or financial interests that might be effected by the performance of the PWS. Additionally, the offeror shall identify any potential conflicts of interest, as that term is defined in FAR part 9, that the offeror reasonably believes could arise during the performance of this contract. The offeror’s submission should include any subcontractors or team members. Offerors should be aware that the technical, financial, and operational assistance efforts anticipated under this contract may implicate budgets, priorities, or recommendations of other service or product/system acquisition of the Army or DOD. Accordingly, offerors should be particularly sensitive to the potential conflicts that might arise should the offeror or its affiliates/subcontractors have any financial interest in other contracts related to Army/DOD services or products/systems. The accuracy of the findings presented shall be certified to the best of their knowledge and belief by an official authorized to bind the company. If the conclusion reached by the contractor is that no OCI exists, then a statement certifying that the contractor (including subcontractors and affiliates) has no OCI issues relating to this Request for Proposal or contract, including supporting rationale, shall be submitted as well.

In the context of OCI, involvement is defined as any participation or connection to a project, contract, program, or product which may create actual or perceived OCI. The Contracting Officer will review statements provided by each offeror as to the work the company has performed; evaluate the submittals considering in-house knowledge as to the company's program support; and determine whether or not there is an OCI. This must include all subcontractors and affiliates. Subcontractor and affiliate OCI is equivalent to a prime contractor OCI.

To prevent the improper release or disclosure of information, or any actual or perceived personal or organizational conflict of interest that might arise in the performance of this contract, the contractor shall bring any potential conflicting relationships or financial interests held by the contractor, its key employees, or others executing performance on behalf of the contractor to the attention of the Contracting Officer throughout the life of this contract. If the Contracting Officer determines that an unacceptable conflict or violation exists, the contractor will take the actions necessary to mitigate or eliminate the conflict or violation. If the contractor's approach to mitigation is not deemed satisfactory by the Contracting Officer, the Contracting Officer may take other actions.

The Contracting Officer will review statements provided by each offeror as to the work the company has performed or anticipates; evaluate the submittals considering in-house knowledge as to the company’s program support; and determine whether or not there is an Identification and Mitigation Plan. The Government’s consideration of this information is for purposes of assessing the contractor’s responsibility and is not otherwise part of the evaluation factors to be considered for award.

For any potential conflicts of interest, the offeror shall provide a mitigation plan to be reviewed and approved by the Contracting Officer. The mitigation plan shall provide verifiable means of eliminating any significant conflict of interest in the performance of this contract. The mitigation plan shall also describe the contractor's current policies for identifying, reporting, and preventing future organizational and personal conflicts of interest that might arise in the performance of this contract.

The contractor is responsible for ensuring compliance, both organizationally and individually, with regulatory and professional standards, including any standards relating to ethics, obtaining and releasing proprietary information, and individual or organizational conflicts of interest. The responsibilities of this clause shall apply to all subcontractors, team members and affiliates.

Subcontractors/Team Members/Affiliates

Offerors proposing subcontractors/team members/affiliates or other organizational elements not part of the entity submitting the offer shall provide evidence of the commitment from these organizations to perform as presented in the proposal. Examples might include teaming agreements, subcontracts, joint venture agreements, or other similar commitments. If the Offeror is a division or subsidiary of another company, provide an organizational chart depicting all parent and affiliated companies of the Offeror.

Volume 2 – Technical:

The Offeror’s proposal shall describe in detail its knowledge and experience in meeting the following requirements:

a) The Offeror proposal shall describe the technical requirements, technical aspects of implementation, and risks involved with the support required to sustain the Army’s implementation of a host facility in Radford, Virginia for SPS and the functional support under the PWS for the Army Contracting Enterprise across the world.

b) The Offeror proposal shall describe its knowledge and experience in supporting deployment and maintenance of a consolidated environment on a large-scale and multi-tiered implementation supporting 4,000+ users. Architecture tiers to be supported/managed include:

· Web

· Application

· Data

· Integration

c) The Offeror proposal shall describe its knowledge and experience with deploying and maintaining, SPS or similar systems, in virtual environments, including knowledge for supporting tools such as Citrix XenApp, VMware, and automated scripts for environment maintenance and configuration.

d) The Offeror proposal shall describe its knowledge and experience in (functional and technical implementation support) and experience supporting all current SPS service releases (SR) baselines (SR14a through SR17) and underlying technologies, as deployed within the Army production and/or test environments.

e) The Offeror proposal shall describe its knowledge and experience in the SPS JPMO user acceptance and regression test processes used for product acceptance. Knowledge of supporting SPS in an enterprise test environment to manage all layers of a consolidated, web-enabled environment (web, application, data, integration) and support Army SPS test processes such as:

· User Acceptance Testing

· Regression

· Smoke/implementation

f) The Offeror proposal shall describe its knowledge and experience in the Army SPS user community, and the ability to develop targeted communications and training for the purpose of building core shared knowledge and resolving repeating incidents, service requests, and problems.

g) The Offeror proposal shall describe its knowledge and experience in systems used to support the SPS-Army incident management and request fulfillment processes, and how they relate to the ITIL Service Model framework for tiered support and long term incident, service, and problem management.

h) The Offeror proposal shall describe its knowledge and experience in SPS and Procurement Desktop Defense (PD2) software components:

· PD2 Client

· PD2 Application Server Framework (ASF)

· WebMethods Integration Server, Broker Server ( including myWebmethods Server )

· PD2 Legacy Integrations

· SAP Sybase Adaptive Server Enterprise (ASE)

· Document Transfer Utility (DTU)

· PD2 Archiving Capability

i) The Offeror proposal shall describe its knowledge of and experience with managing SAP Sybase ASE deployed in both Solaris 11 and Windows Server 2008/2012 Army environments.

j) The Offeror proposal shall describe its knowledge of and experience with deploying and sustaining third-party system backup technologies (e.g., Veritas NetBackup) in conjunction with the SPS Sybase RDBMS.

k) The Offeror proposal shall describe its knowledge of and experience in end-to-end understanding of the GFEBS pre-award validation process, its technical implementation requirements, support requirements, and interface partner support structures.

l) The Offeror proposal shall describe its knowledge of and experience in the Army SPS integration layer/environment and all Army interfaces and file structures as outlined below:

All interfaces utilized by SPS sites under the purview of ODASA(P) and their associated connection/security mechanisms:

· GFEBS

· LMP

· DEAMS

· ABSS

· IAPS

· CEFMS

· RMS

· GEX (EDA/WAWF, PDS, DMLSS, TAMMIS, CAPS)

m) The Offeror proposal shall describe its knowledge of and experience performing functional support for Army FPDS-NG in a Tier 2 capacity and adhere to current processes as well as promote knowledge sharing. Processes include:

· Access Management

· Data Corrections

· Organizational Hierarchy Changes

n) The Offeror proposal shall describe its knowledge of and experience of the GFEBS business interface, including pre-award validation processes, as well as interface and functional error reporting and resolution.

o) The Offeror proposal shall describe its knowledge of and experience with the DoD SPS Joint Program Management Office (JPMO) Green Light process, as it relates to Army SPS implementations and upgrades; critical components of the review include:

· Pre-Implementation Package Document

· Sybase Backup Logs

· Sybase Error Logs

· Sybase DBCC Logs

· webMethods Integration Server Logs

p) The Offeror proposal shall describe its knowledge of and experience with the DoD Implementation of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Risk Management Framework (RMF) as it applies to obtaining and maintain the SPS platform’s Authority to Operate (ATO) on DoD networks.

q) The Offeror proposal shall describe its knowledge of and experience of how to deploy and support integration configuration management in complex enterprise environment with more than 200 interface connections and associated certificates, directories, and connectivity.

Volume 3 - Program Management:

The Offeror’s proposal shall provide a clear, concise and comprehensive understanding of the following:

a) The Offeror proposal shall describe the programmatic requirements, programmatic aspects of implementation, and address risks involved with the support required to sustain the Army’s implementation of a host facility in Radford, Virginia for SPS and the functional support under the PWS for the Army Contracting Enterprise across the world.

b) The Offeror’s proposal shall provide a comprehensive approach, a detailed work plan as to how each task will be accomplished and shall demonstrate a thorough understanding of the PWS including the Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) Performance Requirements, and Quality Control Plan.

c) The Offeror’s proposal shall provide distribution of workload, and demonstrate how they will handle multiple projects at the same time.

d) The Offeror’s proposal shall provide innovative approaches it has developed or uses in streamline processes. Shall demonstrate what approaches it has used to improve the streamline processes.

e) The Offeror’s proposal shall provide the company’s strategy for implementing supervisory functions for simultaneous support services projects. Shall demonstrate the ability to adapt to changes in the project timeline and events, the ability to deliver documents, meet timelines, the ability to communicate clearly, both orally and in writing.

f) There will be a 30-calendar day transition-in period from contract award for the Contractor to ramp up to meet all contractual requirements including a full up complement of staff. The Offeror’s proposal shall provide a plan in-accordance-with the PWS for obtaining appropriate level of staffing, and for conducting transfer of work from the incumbent contractor personnel.

g) The Offeror’s proposal shall provide a thoroughly and sufficient demonstration of the organizational manpower presently in-house, or the ability to acquire the personnel with the skill set to perform the PWS requirements. The Offeror’s proposal shall provide an explanation indicating the Offeror’s proposed management methodology and ability to manage PWS tasks and requirements. The Offeror’s proposal shall provide sufficient detail to enable the Government to assess the Offeror’s capabilities to support the organizational goals.

Volume 4 - Corporate Experience:

The offeror shall submit an organizational structure and management plan which demonstrates its ability to successfully perform this contract.

1. Offerors shall submit a narrative description of three (3) contracts which demonstrate the offeror’s experience that is “Relevant” and “Recent” to this requirement. A “Recent” contract is defined as one that is performed for at least (3) three years, and was an active contract at any point during the past (3) three years; additionally, it must be relevant to the efforts required by this solicitation. A “Relevant” contract is defined as a Department of Defense contract having similar dollar value, duration, scope/requirement, and technical complexity to the proposed requirement of the PWS. Of the three (3) records required, two (2) must have been performed by the offeror as the prime. Offerors shall demonstrate how their corporate experience specifically correlates to the requirements of the Army Procurement Response Team using a side-by-side “crosswalk” comparison.

A significant subcontractor/teaming partners’ project experience may be relevant regardless of whether that experience was attained in the role of a prime contractor or a subcontractor. If a subcontractor submits contracts where they were a subcontractor (and not the prime) the dollar value, scope, and/or complexity of each project must be substantially similar in the dollar value, scope, and/or complexity of the subcontractor’s effort anticipated in this proposal. Experience information must include a contract number, contract type, dollar value, date of award, performance period, and a brief narrative describing the nature and complexity of the work. A “major subcontractor” or ”significant subcontractor” or ”teaming partner” is defined to be a subcontract that is proposed to provide $1,500,000 million in effort in any single year during the offeror’s proposed period of performance.

2. Offerors must also address the following points in their Corporate Experience volume:

a. History of the offeror in the disciplines covered by the PWS, the degree of completeness of the vendor’s response to the specific requirements of the PWS, and demonstration of understanding of the project and its objectives.

b. How management and oversight of prior contracts is relevant to their proposed approach in performing this requirement.

c. The extent to which the offeror has addressed requirements of like scope, magnitude, detail, and challenges that may be encountered under the prospective contract.

Volume 5 - Past Performance:

The offeror shall provide narrative descriptions of three (3) of “Recent” and “Relevant” contracts, and up to two (2) recent, relevant contracts performed by a major subcontractor or team member. A “major subcontractor” is defined as a subcontractor that is proposed to provide $1,500,000 million in effort in any single year during the contract period of performance. Three (3) of the contracts submitted for past performance shall match the contracts submitted for the Corporate Experience factor. A “Recent” contract is defined as one that is performed for at least (3) three years, and was an active contract at any point during the past (3) three years; additionally, it must be relevant to the efforts required by this solicitation. A “Relevant” contract is defined as a Department of Defense contract having similar dollar value, duration, scope/requirement, and technical complexity to the proposed requirement of the PWS.

Each past performance narrative shall clearly indicate how the contract effort is both recent and relevant and include the following:

i. Contractor/company name/division performing the work.

ii. Address

iii. Program identification/title

iv. Government Agency being supported

v. Contract number

vi. Contract type

vii. Contract value

viii. Contract award date

ix. Forecasted or actual completion date

x. Describe the nature of the contractual effort and skills mix

xi. Identify any problems encountered during performance and how resolved

xii. Identify any other constraints similar to those expected to be encountered in performing of this Request for Proposal

xiii. Identify and explain any contract terminations

The past performance cited does not have to be related to Army but should reflect experience with similar Department of Defense activities.

Past Performance POCs Matrix - For each contract reference identified, the offeror shall identify Government Points of Contact (POCs) (either Contracting Officer, Contracting Officer’s Representative, or Technical Manager) who can provide information on the Offeror’s contract performance to include the following:

i. POC name and title

ii. Current telephone number for the POC

iii. Current e-mail address for the POC

In addition, the Government reserves the right to use alternative resources to gather past performance information.

Dissemination of Performance Risk Assessment Questionnaires:

The Offeror shall provide a copy of the Past Performance Risk Assessment Questionnaire (Attachment 4) to the Government POCs identified in the Offeror’s Past Performance POCs Matrix. Past Performance Risk Assessment Questionnaire received that do not correspond to those cited in Offeror’s proposal may not be evaluated.

The Offeror shall request that the POC: (1) provide information requested in PART II and (2) submit the completed questionnaire (via e-mail) directly to the ACC-APG Contracting Officer by the date specified in the questionnaire. Completed questionnaires shall NOT be collected by the Offeror or included in the Offeror’s Past Performance proposal.

Volume 6 – Price Proposal:

1. The Price Proposal Volume shall consist of a narrative describing the methodology used to build up to the total proposed price, and completed Section B of the Solicitation (Base and Option Years). Any proposed subcontractor may submit their proprietary pricing information as required in the same form and format directly to the contracting officer/specialist via email.

a) ART Support CLINs / Firm Fixed Price (FFP): Bid on a monthly basis. Use Attachment 5 to assist in your proposed price.

b) Extended Hour and Fiscal Year End Support CLINs / Time and Materials (T&M): A not to exceed has been set at 700 hours. Offer shall propose a labor category and rate for this support.

c) Travel CLINs / Time and Materials (T&M): A normalized amount of $3,000 annually has been specified for proposal purposes. Each Offeror is to include this amount in their proposal. Any material handling and/or G&A shall be added to this normalized amount.

d) Transition-In CLIN / Time and Materials (T&M): Offer shall provide the labor categories, rates, and hours that comprise the total price for this CLIN.

2. In accordance with FAR 52.222-46, offerors and proposed subcontractor shall submit a total compensation plan setting forth salaries and fringe benefits proposed for the professional employees who will work under the contract. This provision requires that offerors submit for evaluation a total compensation plan setting forth the following for professional employees working on the contract:

a. Proposed salaries

b. Fringe benefits

Offerors shall also submit supporting verification information as attachments to the plan to include actual payroll and fringe benefit/rate data for any proposed employees currently working for the offeror. For any proposed employees not currently working for the offeror, the offeror shall include other verifying data, such as recognized national and regional compensation surveys and studies of professional, public and private organizations, used in establishing the total compensation structure including direct labor and fringe benefits. If an offeror fails to submit the required plan and requested supporting information, the offeror's quote will be considered to be inadequate, unresponsive, and will be excluded from consideration. Each offeror and any subcontractors shall submit copies of their compensation plans. Offerors shall also submit supporting verification information as attachments to the plan to include actual payroll and fringe benefit/rate data.

3. Competition is anticipated in response to this solicitation. Be advised that Other than Certified Cost or Pricing Data is currently required. If adequate competition is not received Certified Cost or Pricing Data may be required. The contracting officer may specify the format.

B. BASIS FOR AWARD – (Section M)

The OCI Risk Mitigation Plan will be assessed by the Contracting Officer as part of a responsibility determination. Based on the OCI Risk Mitigation Plan information required in Section L of the Request for Proposal, the Contracting Officer will determine whether or not an OCI (or the appearance of an OCI) exists and, if so, whether or not the OCI can be mitigated. If the Contracting Officer does not believe the OCI can be mitigated then the Offeror will not be eligible for award.

To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than “Acceptable” must be achieved for the following factors: 1) Technical 2) Program Management, Corporate Experience, and 3) Past Performance. The Price factor must be judged to be fair and reasonable.

Relative Importance of Factors: A best value trade-off analysis may be conducted between Technical and Cost/Price. The Technical Factor is significantly more important than Cost/Price. Offerors are strongly cautioned that an award may not necessarily be made based on the lowest price offered or the highest rated proposal.

1. The Government will make a single award to the offeror whose proposal conforms to the Request for Proposal requirements, and whose proposal, judged by an overall assessment of the evaluation criteria and other considerations specified in the Request for Proposal represent the best value offer. An unacceptable rating in any of the factors will result in the Offerors being considered ineligible for award.

2. The Government may not award any contracts in the event that no proposals are considered to be in the best interest of the Government. The Government intends to award this contract without discussions, and as such Offerors are encouraged to submit their best proposal up front. The Government however does reserves the right to conduct discussion.

3. Portions of any offeror's proposal may be subject to review by contractor(s) / employee(s) of Anyar Inc. Submission of an offer grants permission for the Government to provide such information to Anyar Inc. personnel for purposes of proposal evaluation only. All Anyar Inc. employee(s) have executed non-disclosure agreements pertinent to their support at ACC-APG.

4. The Technical, Program Management, Corporate Experience factors will be evaluated first, and only those proposals determined to be acceptable will have their Past Performance evaluated.

C. FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

Factor I – Technical (Trade Off) Factor II – Program Management (Acceptable or Unacceptable) Factor III – Corporate Experience (Acceptable or Unacceptable) Factor IV – Past Performance (Acceptable or Unacceptable) Factor V – Price

D. EVALUATION APPROACH

All proposals shall be subject to evaluation by a team of Government personnel or Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB). All proposal submission requirements must be met, clear, concise, and comprehensive and meet the requirements of the PWS in order to be found technically acceptable. Ambiguities may result in an unacceptable rating. Contents of written proposal and written response to Evaluation Notices (EN), should the Government commence discussions, will be evaluated to determine the degree and extent to which the requirements set forth in the RFP are satisfied. No assumptions will be made by the Government evaluators regarding areas not defined in the offeror’s written proposal. The Government’s evaluation of offerors’ proposal will be limited to information provided within proposals submitted, with the exception of Price and Past Performance, where data extrinsic to the offerors’ proposals may be considered.

The SSEB will evaluate the proposals to determine whether the requirements specified in the RFP have been adequately, completely satisfied by the offeror. The evaluators will consider the following criteria when evaluating the Technical Factor, Program Management, and Corporate Experience.

· a. Adequacy of Response. The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the Offeror’s methods and approach have adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirements specified in the RFP. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which each requirement has been addressed in the proposal in accordance with the proposal submission section of the RFP.

· b. Feasibility of Approach. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the proposed approach is workable and the end results achievable. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which successful performance is contingent upon proven procedures and techniques. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the Offeror is expected to be able to successfully complete the proposed tasks and technical requirements within the required schedule.

c. Understanding of Requirements. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the proposal demonstrates a clear understanding of all technical features involved in solving the problems and meeting the requirements; and the extent to which uncertainties are identified and resolutions are proposed.

Technical Factor – I (Trade Off):

The ratings for the Technical Factor will be expressed as an adjectival assessment as defined below. The Government will include assessment of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses and deficiencies in determining the Technical Factor rating. The Offeror’s Technical proposal submitted in response to Section L of the solicitation and will be evaluated as follows:

Technical Factor Rating

Program Management - Factor II (Acceptable or Unacceptable):

The Offeror’s Program Management proposal submitted in response to Section L of the solicitation and will be evaluated to assess following:

Corporate Experience Factor – III (Acceptable or Unacceptable):

The Corporate Experience Factor will evaluate the Offeror’s corporate experience as it applies to fulfilling existing requirements with a similar degree of complexity for the requirements set forth in the PWS. The Corporate Experience factor will be in accordance with the below to determine the Government’s confidence that the Offeror can successfully execute the requirements of the contract. The Government will utilize information pertaining to Offeror performance on recent, relevant contracts as identified in the offeror’s proposal. The objective of the evaluation is to: 1) Determine the degree to which the offeror has previously encountered requirements of like breadth, detail, and challenges that it may encounter under the prospective contract; 2) Develop insight into the offeror’s demonstrated capabilities and its ability to meet the Government’s stated requirement.

The Offeror’s Corporate Experience proposal submitted in response to Section L of the solicitation and will be evaluated to assess following:

Past Performance Factor – IV (Acceptable or Unacceptable):

The Past Performance Factor will evaluate the Offeror’s past performance as it applies to fulfilling existing requirements with a similar degree of complexity for the requirements set forth in the PWS. The Past Performance factor will be in accordance with the below to determine the Government’s confidence that the Offeror can successfully execute the requirements of the contract. The Government will utilize information pertaining to Offeror performance on recent, relevant contracts as identified in the offeror’s proposal. The Government may independently obtain information from other relevant contracts and sources for the purpose of evaluating past performance.

Note: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.”

Price Factor - V:

Proposed price will not be adjectively rated. The basis for determining the lowest priced offer will be the cumulative sum of all CLINs from Section B of the Solicitation, except the Transition In CLIN and any Not Separately Priced CLINs, for the Base Year and Option Years. The Transition In pricing will be evaluated separately for fair and reasonableness.

1. Each offeror's price proposal will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. In accordance with FAR 15.404-1(a)(1) the analytical techniques and procedures described in FAR 15.404-1 will be used singly or in combination with others to ensure the awarded price is fair and reasonable. The level of detail of this analysis will be determined by the Contracting Officer based on competition and other factors.

1. Professional employee compensation will be reviewed by the Government in accordance with the clause at FAR 52.222-46, “Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees.”