STOC-II-15-KOV-0005
Section L & M -Proposal Submission Instructions and Evaluation Criteria
Page 1 of 12
C-RAM LPWS OMT ProgramKey Dates
Proposal Submission Date and Time: / May1, 2016, no later than 2:00 p.m. Local Time (Orlando, FL)
Proposal Validity / 180 days after Request for Proposal (RFP) closing.
RFP Questions due by COB: / April8, 2016
Points of Contact
Acquisition Center POC: / Army Contracting Command (ACC), Orlando
Attn: Roberto Gotay, Contract Specialist (CS)
3039 Technology Parkway
Orlando, FL 32826
Telephone: 407-208-5617
E-mail:
Alternate POCs: / Eric Hertl, Contracting Officer
Telephone: 407-208-3474
E-mail:
Submission Requirements
Format: / Microsoft Office 2013
The proposal shall be submitted in three sets of three CDs each.
All CDs shall be appropriately labeled with the Offeror’s name, RFP number, Amendment(s), if applicable, date, proposal volume and copy number. The CD containing the Technical Volume shall be labeled “Volume I, Technical” and shall contain the Transmittal Letter, Executive Summary and the Technical Volume. The CD containing the Price Volume shall be labeled “Volume II, Price” and shall only contain Pricing information.
Proposal Submissions by paper, email or facsimile are not authorized. All proposal materials, including subcontractor cost material if applicable, shall be provided on CD.
Font: / Times New Roman (TNR) 12 pt for all text including text in tables, figures, and diagrams.
Page Size: / 8 ½X 11
Fold Outs: / 8 ½ x 14, foldouts strictly reserved for tables and diagrams. Text other than the text in the table, figure, or diagram shall not be in foldout pages.
Margins: / 1" on all sides for all pages and foldouts.
Orientation: / Portrait. Only foldouts may be in landscape.
Markings: / All pages shall be numbered and marked:
“SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.104”
Submission Requirements
Notes:
1. / The Government reserves the right to request additional information after receipt of the Offeror’s responses to the RFP.
2. / Offerors are advised that proposals shall be accepted only from STOC II Lot II awardees. Such Offerors shall be responsible for submitting complete proposal packages containing all components of the proposal inclusive of any team member or subcontract proposal information.
3. / Offerors shallconduct a cost/price analysis of all subcontract proposals and submit to Government as part of proposal.
4. / Hand Carried Proposals. If a proposal or proposal amendment(s) is/are hand carried, the Offeror shall submit it directly to the Contract Specialist or Contracting Officer by the due date and time of submission of proposal(s). The hand carried proposal shall follow the Electronic Submission Requirements as stated above.
The delivery location if Hand Delivered is:
Army Contracting Command (ACC), Orlando
Partnership III Building,
3039 Technology Parkway
Orlando, FL 32826
5. / Mailed Proposals. If a proposal or proposal amendment(s) is/are mailed, the Offeror shall ensure the proposal is received at the designated Government office by the due dute and time of submission of proposal(s). The mailed proposal shall follow the Electronic Submission Requirements as stated above.
Offeror must e-mail and ith the following information: Name of Company, Company Address, Date Mailed, Company used to make delivery (U.S. Post Office, FedEx, etc.), tracking number if available, and a point of contact (name, phone number, and e-mail address) and mail to the following address:
Army Contracting Command (ACC), Orlando
Attn: Roberto Gotay, Contract Specialist (CS)
12211 Science Drive
Orlando FL 32826-3224
6. / If an Offeror believes that the requirements and/or instructions in the RFP contain an error, omission, or are otherwise unsound, the Offeror shall immediately notify the Contract Specialist and Contracting Officer in writing (E Mail is acceptable) with supporting rationale.
Submission Requirements
7. / All Volumes shall be sufficiently specific, detailed and complete as to demonstrate clearly and fully that the Offeror has a thorough understanding and knowledge of the requirements. Statements that the Offeror understands and will perform the listed functions/requirements without supporting information/narrative are inadequate. Paraphrasing or reiteration of the SOW, System Specification document, or parts thereof is similarly inadequate, as are phrases such as “standard procedures will be employed” or “well-known techniques will be used.” Providing appropriate supporting information will permit a complete and accurate evaluation of the proposal and ensure all elements required are addressed.
8. / The Offeror shall ensure that each proposal Volume submitted contains only the information relevant to that specific Volume. The Offerors are cautioned that each Volume of the proposal is evaluated stand alone against the criteria set forth in the Proposal Submission Instructions and Evaluation Criteria and if the data is not contained in the appropriate volume of the proposal, it will not be evaluated.
9. / The successful Offeror will be required to comply with all aspects of the requirements documents (SOW, Specification, CDRLs, etc) for the delivery order resulting from this solicitation.
10. / The Offeror shall ensure that cost/price information is located only in the Price Volume, Volume II.
11. / Those pages that exceed the page counts in the Proposal Submission Instructions and Evaluation Criteria for the Written Proposal will not be evaluated.
12 / Offerors are responsible for submitting proposals, and any modifications or revisions, so as to reach the Government office designated in the solicitation by the time specified in the solicitation.
13. / Offerors shall identify the intellectual property rights and technical data rights included in their proposal submission IAW DFARS Subparts 252.227-7013 and 7014 via completion of solicitation provision DFARS Subpart 252.227-7017
14 / This solicitation does not commit the Government to pay any costs incurred in the preparation and submission of offeror’s proposal(s) or in making any necessary studies for the preparation thereof, or for any visit the Contracting Officer may request for the purpose of clarification of the proposal or for preparation for negotiations.
1
STOC-II-15-KOV-0005
Section L & M -Proposal Submission Instructions and Evaluation Criteria
Page 1 of 12
RFP No: / STOCII-15-KOV-0005 / Title: / C-RAM LPWS OMT
PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS and EVALUATION CRITERIA
Volume I - Technical
FACTORS &
Sub Factors / OFFEROR
Submission Instructions / No. of Copies/
Format / Page Limit / GOVERNMENT
Evaluation Criteria / SOW (SPEC/PWS) Paragraph. / Proposal Paragraph Number
Executive Summary
(NOT a FACTOR) / The Offerorshall provide a transmittal letter and an executive summary of the overall proposed technical solutions. The transmittal letter shall state that the Offeror is able to meetall requirements within; confirm receipt and acknowledge acceptance of all amendments. The transmittal letter shall also include title of RFP; RFP number; Government issuing office identification; full official name and address of firm; name and phone number of the individual designated as the responsible contact for the firm; reference to the enclosures or volume numbers; and, the date of the enclosures or volumes if different from the date of an Offeror’s proposal. An authorized official of the Offerorshall sign the transmittal letter. / 3 CD ROM/MS 2013 / 5 / The transmittal letter and executive summary have no evaluation criteria, and will not be used as the basis for assigning a Factor or Sub-factor adjectival rating. The transmittal letter acknowledges that your submission is in response to the most recent RFP posted and the executive summary provides a guide for better understanding of the proposal. / N/A
Factor
1.0 / Factor 1: Technical Approach. / 60 / Factor 1: Technical Approach.
Subfactor
1.1
C-RAM LPWS OMT
Design Approach / The Offeror shall describe their design and approach for achieving their OMT solution. This discussion shall explain how their design will support maintainability, reliability, and sustainability once the OMT is deployed.
The Offeror shall describe its approach to interactive modeling, to include any possible reuse, of the LPWS System and subsystem models, its components and tool sets within the simulation to ensure student comprehension of the training tasks.
The Offeror shall describe their design approach for implementing and executing both the LPWS Operator and Maintainer tasks for the Tutorial, Instructional, and Free Play Modes, as well as describe their plan for training-task-decomposition to ensure that all tasks can be trained to standard.
The Offeror shall describe its approach to simulating operator and maintainer LPWS operations, troubleshooting and procedures; such as loading and unloading, removal and replacement of components, instrument readouts of equipment displays, and malfunctions. / The Government will evaluate how the proposed design and approach will support training along with maintainability, reliability, and sustainability.
The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed approach for interactive modeling, to include any possible reuse, of the LPWS System and subsystem models, its components and tool sets within the simulation to ensure student comprehension of the training tasks.
The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s design approach for implementing and executing both the LPWS Operator and Maintainer tasks for the Tutorial, Instructional, and Free Play Modes as well asthe Offeror’s proposed plan for training-task-decomposition to ensure that all tasks can be trained to standard.
The Government will evaluate the proposed approach for how the OMT will be simulated to support operator and maintainer LPWS operations, procedures, and troubleshooting tasks. / SOW
3.2
SPEC
3.0
Subfactor
1.2
Previous Experience with Computer Based Simulations / The Offeror shall describe previous experience with computer based simulations. The Offeror shall describe specifically what roles they participated in the development, integration, testing, and fielding of the computer based simulation.
The Offeror shall provide the information for current and/or previous contracts. Information provided should include
(1) project title;
(2) contract number;
(3) a narrative explanation of the requirement and how it is relevant to the requirements of this solicitation;
(4) contract performance dates;
(5) total monetary value of the effort; / The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s description of their previous experience developing computer based simulations. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s roles and participation in the development, integration, testing, and fielding of the computer based simulation. / SOW
3.0
Subfactor
1.3
C-RAM LPWS OMT Requirements / The Offeror shall describe the approach and how it plans to meet the Statement of Work (SOW) and Specification requirements to provide the ability to train all tasks (PEO STRI- SPEC- PRF-PT-00634) to standard. This solution shall provide full and complete Government Purpose Rights (GPR) with a comprehensive and complete Technical Data Package (TDP). / The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s technical approach to meet the overall requirements of the SOW and System Specification and ability to train all tasks to standard.
The Government will evaluate the Offeror's development, and test strategy to ensure the requirements of the SOW and System Specification are met.
The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal regarding a training solution that provides full Government Purpose Rights (GPR)and complete Technical Data Package (TDP). / SOW
3.0
SPEC
3.0
Subfactor
1.4
Facility, Personnel, and Schedule Management / The Offeror shall describe their approach for managing the C-RAM LPWS OMT effort. This description shall address the management process and contract management tools as well as all resources, facilities, equipment, and personnel that will be involved in completing the tasks described in the C-RAM LPWS OMT SOW and called for in the C-RAM LPWS OMT system specification. This description shall also include a detailed Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) for CLINs 0001throught0014. This shall include the task descriptions provided in proposed Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) which shall show all major milestones and their interdependencies. The Offeror’s IMS shall be provided in a Microsoft Project 2013 file. It shall also be provided as a portable document format (PDF) file. / The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to managing the effort, resources, facilities, equipment, and personnel that will be necessary to complete the tasks in the C-RAM LPWS OMT SOW and System Specification, to include descriptions provided in proposed Integrated Master Schedule (IMS), showing the major milestones and their interdependencies. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed IMS delivery schedule for all production units for risk and feasibility. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s IMS via a Microsoft Project 2013 file. / SOW
3.1
Volume II–Price / No Price information shall be included in any volume other than Price Volume.
FACTOR 2.0 /
Submission Instructions / No. of Copies/
Format / Page Limit / GOVERNMENT
Evaluation Criteria / SOW (SPEC/PWS) Paragraph. / Proposal Paragraph Number
Factor 2.0
Price / Section B: The Offeror shall complete Section B by entering a price/cost for each CLIN unless identified as NSP.
The Offeror shall submit contact information (name, telephone number and email address) for their cognizant ACO and their cognizant Audit office. / 3 CD ROM/ MS 2013 / 20 / Offers will be evaluated in accordance with the provisions of FAR 15.404-1. The Total Evaluated Price will be the sum of all Section B, Firm Fixed Price (FFP) CLINs. / N/A
1
STOC-II-15-KOV-0005
Section L & M -Proposal Submission Instructions and Evaluation Criteria
Page 1 of 12
Basis for AwardThe award will be based upon an integrated assessment of the Offeror’s proposal. The award decision will not be made by the application of a pre-defined formula, but rather by the conduct of an integrated tradeoff assessment among the evaluation factors/subfactors and by the exercise of sound business judgment on the part of the Source Selection Authority. An order will be awarded to a single offeror whose proposal represents the OVERALL BEST Value to the Government based on the Factors, Sub-factors, and Relative Order of Importance set forth herein. As such, the Government may award to other than the lowest price or technically outstanding proposal. The degree of importance allocated to the Pricefactor will increase as the Offerors’ proposals become more equal in the other evaluation areas. To receive consideration for award, a rating no less than Acceptable must be achieved for all Technical SubFactors.
RELATIVE ORDER OF IMPORTANCE
The Technical, Factor 1, is more important than Price, Factor 2.
Note: The Technical Subfactors relative order of importance is: Subfactor 1.1 is more important thanSubfactor1.2. Subfactor1.2 is slightly more important than Subfactor1.3. Subfactor1.3 is more important than Subfactor1.4.
Notes:
1. / Page Limits do not include cover and title pages, tables of contents, transmittal pages, executive summary, blank pages or other items inserted solely for the purpose of reading ease and locating sections of the proposal. Pages marked "Intentionally Blank" will not be counted.
Page Count: Those pages that exceed the page counts for each volume will not be evaluated.
2. / All proposals will be evaluated by a team of Government employees.
3. / Price Factor will not be assigned an Adjectival Rating.
4. / This competition is being conducted pursuant to FAR Subpart 16.5 and the STOC II Guide. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a delivery order without exchanges other than clarifications. “Exchanges” and “clarifications” are defined in FAR 15.306, but these terms are used without otherwise importing the policies and procedure of FAR 15. Proposals shall therefore contain an Offeror’s best terms. Accordingly, the Government will strive to evaluate each Offeror’s proposal fairly, evenly, and in accordance with the RFP evaluation criteria. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer determines them to be necessary. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.
Under FAR Subpart 16.5, the Government provides a “fair opportunity” to be considered for the delivery order award. After the Government’s initial evaluation, the Government may: (1) establish a competitive range and further consider only the Offeror or Offerors’ who are most likely to provide the best value in a revised proposal to participate in one-on-one sessions and/or provide additional information, including expanded proposals and revised proposals; (2) award to one Offeror based on the initial offers received; or (3) not award to any Offeror. Thus, the Offeror’s initial proposal material should contain the Offeror’s best terms and conditions, and price.
5. / The Government expects that this contract will be awarded based upon adequate price competition. However in order to determine the prices are fair and reasonable, the Government reserves the right to request the offeror provide cost breakdown to support proposed prices.
Technical Factor Definitions
Ratings for the Technical Factors and their Sub-Factors will be expressed as a single rating which includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the significant strengths, strengths, significant weaknesses, weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings. The rating includes a Technical Rating for the quality of the Offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirements.
Combined Technical/Risk RatingsColor / Rating / Description
Blue / Outstanding / Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.
Purple / Good / Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.
Green / Acceptable / Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.
Yellow / Marginal / Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.
Red / Unacceptable / Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is unawardable.
Key Evaluation Terms and Definitions