SOLICITATION NOTICE
A -- SUPPORT TO OPERATIONAL EVALUATIONS FOR DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE
- Notice Date
- 6/5/2005
- Notice Type
- Solicitation Notice
- NAICS
- 541512
— Computer Systems Design Services
- Contracting Office
- Other Defense Agencies, Defense Intelligence Agency, DIA Bolling AFB, Bolling AFB, Bldg. 6000 AE-2, Washington, DC, 20340-5100
- ZIP Code
- 20340-5100
- Solicitation Number
- HHM402-05-R-0029
- Response Due
- 6/21/2005
- Description
- This notice is a combined synopsis/solicitation for commercial items prepared in accordance with the format in FAR subpart 12.6, as supplemented with additional information included in this notice. This announcement constitutes the only solicitation; proposals are being requested and a written solicitation will not be issued. This solicitation is issued as a Request for Proposal (RFP) No. HHM402-05-R-0029. This is a unrestricted RFP. The North American Industry Classification System Code is 541512 (formerly SIC code 7373). CLIN 0001: The Contractor shall specify the number of personnel and all labor necessary to perform and complete all services IAW the Statement of Objectives entitled " Support to Operational Evaluations for Defense Intelligence" Dated 26 May 2005. Direct Labor CLINs 0001AA ? 0001AD : CLIN 0001AA Project Planning QTY 1 Unit LT Unit Price _________ Extended Cost ________ CLIN 0001AB Operational Evaluations QTY 1 Unit LT Unit Price _________ Extended Cost ________ CLIN 0001AC Technology Exploitation QTY 1 Unit LT Unit Price _________ Extended Cost ________ CLIN 0001AD Sustainment of Operational Research and Development Experiment Collaboration (RDEC) network QTY 1 Unit LT Unit Price _________ Extended Cost ________Other Direct Cost: QTY 1 Unit LT Unit Price _________Extended Cost ________Total Contract Cost ________ STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES FOR SUPPORT TO OPERATIONAL EVALUATIONS FOR DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE. 1. PURPOSE: The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) proposes to obtain technical, project management, and product evaluation services for improving intelligence analysis capabilities. 2. BACKGROUND: The primary mission of Defense Intelligence is to provide timely and accurate global threat intelligence support to Department of Defense policy-makers and operational commanders at all echelons of command: national, theater, and tactical during peace, crisis, and war whether involved in unilateral, bilateral, or multinational operations. As such, Defense Intelligence analysts are responsible for all aspects of intelligence analysis across a wide spectrum of targets. The rapid introduction of advanced technology is crucial to accomplishing DIA?s Strategic Plan and be the premier provider of defense intelligence. However, prior to introduction this advanced technology, it must be evaluated to ensure that it functions properly in the typical work environment, and that it truly improves analytical capabilities. 3. OBJECTIVE: The overall objective of this task involves the Contractor conducting planning, project management, product evaluations, and technology exploitation for moving useful technologies from other Government R&D efforts, industry, and academia to DIA?s operational computing environment via rapid evaluation and fielding recommendations, to be done as part of the overall General Defense Intelligence Program Information Technology (GDIP IT) evaluation program. 4. SCOPE OF WORK: The Contractor shall perform the following tasks for this effort: 4.1 Project Planning. The Contractor shall develop and sustain the DIA-based portion of an operational evaluation network in conjunction with the National Security Agency /Advanced Research and Development Activity (NSA/ARDA) program office. This evaluation network will be used for evaluating new analytical tools via several operational evaluation spirals, the integration of data and advanced analytic tools within this network, methods for all members of Defense Intelligence agencies to participate, and the development of ?to be? business processes. All project planning will consider and be coordinated with other DIA project plans. Additionally, activities by other members of the Intelligence Community (Dept. of Homeland Security, Intelligence Community- Chief Information Officer (IC-CIO), Intelink Management Office, etc.) will be considered, and where applicable, factored into the operational evaluation network plan. The Contractor shall develop a performance-based management system that provides best value to the government. This performance-based management system shall include the contractor?s quality control program, which will demonstrate the contractor?s ability to perform on time, on budget, quality performance to the government. 4.2 Operational Evaluations. The Contractor shall rapidly conduct spirals of operational evaluations of advanced analytic tools on the operational network or on stand-alone networks. The Contractor shall conduct risk reduction evaluations of some technologies before exposing them to Defense Intelligence analysts for further operational evaluation. The Contractor shall create and manage the execution of operational test plan(s). Under the direction of the Contracting Officer?s Representative (COR), the contractor may also participate in operational evaluations being conducted by other contractors in the laboratory. 4.3 Technology Exploitation. As identified by the COR, but only under the approval of the Contracting Officer (CO), the Contractor may be required to manage other outside contractors that have been identified as having applications that have a high likelihood of meeting high priority analytical requirements. These outside contractors will typically be small start-up companies that do not have personnel with clearances, or who do not have system engineers who can support multiple installations of the software. The Contractor shall: 4.3.1 Manage technology providers for rapid support in software training, technical integration, tool modification, evaluation and metrics tasks. 4.3.2 Manage the acquisition of limited hardware and limited software licenses that are required for quick reaction to Government requirements. 4.3.3 Manage personnel that are essential to the above tasks especially as related to integration and operation of software identified through the above processes. 4.4 Sustainment of Operational Research and Development Experiment collaboration (RDEC) network. The contractor shall support and sustain the operational evaluation network node currently in place at the Defense Intelligence Agency Center (Bldg. 6000, MacDill Blvd. Bolling AFB). Upon direction of the COR, the contractor shall expand the node by adding additional servers or workstations at DIA. This node currently consists of workstations in the F3 and 7th Floor modules, servers in the ADP Command Center and network equipment and routers to connect the DIA portion of RDEC to the larger RDEC cloud. 5. PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE: The period of performance for this effort is 12 months from contract award. The exact time frame will be listed on the award. 6. PERSONNEL: The contractor shall have its proposed team in place within 5 days after contract award. All members of the proposed team shall have the necessary security clearances (see paragraph 7) at contract award. The Contractor shall strive to maintain the same team throughout the period of performance on this task. If changes are necessary, the COR must approve the personnel proposed by the contractor. 7. SECURITY REQUIREMENTS: The work described in paragraphs 4 and 9 is classified up to Top Secret with Sensitive Compartmented Information (TS/SCI) and will require the selected contractor to provide personnel with the appropriate level of security clearance. 8. REQUIRED TRAVEL: The Contractor may be required to travel to Government or industry sites located in the United States. The contractor is responsible for the administrations of all travel costs. Travel expenses will be based on the current Joint Travel Regulation for all employees. Claims for local travel (within 50 miles of the DIAC) are not authorized. 9. DELIVERABLES. The contractor shall deliver the following items: ** Program Management Plan, 1 hardcopy, 1 soft copy( in Microsoft Word) 15 days after award; project Planning roadmap, 1 softcopy (Microsoft project), as determined by the COR; Operational Evaluation Report, 1 hardcopy, 1 softcopy (in Microsoft Word), every 4 months; Technical Evaluation Reports, 1 hardcopy, 1 softcopy (in Word) as directed by the COR; Monthly status report, 1 softcopy (in MS Word) monthly, **Final report, 1 hardcopy, 1 softcopy (in Word) within 15 days after scheduled contract end date. ** - Provide one (1) additional copy to the Contracting Officer. 9.2 PROJECT MANAGEMENT. The Contractor Project Manager shall collaborate with the COR to develop and maintain a detailed work plan to include specific tasks, assignments, and schedules. The Contractor Project Manager is responsible for providing appropriate labor skills to accomplish the work. This activity will take place in a government furnished laboratory, which will be shared with other contractors. The contractor will need to work cooperatively with the other contractors under the direction of the COR. 9.3 Program Management Plan (PMP). The Contractor shall deliver a program management plan within 15 days after the award resulting from this statement of objectives (SOO). The program management plan shall detail the proposed schedule for the initial operational evaluation spiral. The plan shall include applications to be evaluated, and the metrics to be captured and assessed for each application. The PMP shall also include a proposed performance based management system for this work to be performed under this SOO. Unless otherwise directed by the CO, The COR will either approve or submit required changes to the PMP. The Contractor shall update the PMP within 5 days after a change is required. 9.4 Project Planning Roadmap. The Contractor shall deliver and maintain a project planning roadmap that presents tasks, milestones, and resources for the primary aspects of the tasks that result from this SOO. 9.5 Operational Evaluation Reports. The Contractor shall produce and deliver operational evaluation reports for each spiral of operational evaluation conducted. Each report will compare the metrics of the prototype application(s) to current operational applications. 9.6 Technology Exploitation Reports. The Contractor shall produce and deliver a technology exploitation report that describes the performance metrics of the application and the readiness of the application to move into an operational evaluation spiral. 9.7 Project Status. The Contractor shall deliver a monthly project status to the COR. The project status shall include funds expended, accomplishments during the previous month, planned activities for the next month, and issues that could affect cost, schedule, or performance on the contract. 10. GOVERNMENT FURNISHED PROPERTY/EQUIPMENT/DATA: The Government shall provide space for the contractors to perform the work on this SOO. 11. INVOICE AND PAYMENTS: The COR will be responsible for certifying payment invoices to DFAS. The contractor must provide original receipts to the COR for all other direct costs (ODCs) prior to approval of payment. 12. DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION. Performance under this contract may require the Contractor to access data and information sensitive to a Government agency, another Government contractor, or of such nature that its dissemination or use other than as specified in this work statement would be adverse to the interests of the Government or others. Neither the Contractor, nor Contract personnel, shall divulge or release information developed or obtained in the course of contract performance, except to authorized Government personnel or upon written approval of the Contracting Officer. The Contractor shall not use, disclose or reproduce any sensitive information that bears restrictive legend, other than as specified in this work statement. Any question on the release of information shall be addressed to or reported to the CO or the COR. Contractor personnel will be required to execute SF 312, Non-Disclosure Agreement prior to performing services as part of this award. CRITERIA FOR CONTRACT AWARD: (a) Basis for Award. Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose offer, conforming to the solicitation, is determined to be the best overall value to the Government, price and other factors considered. The Offeror should show that the objectives stated in the solicitation are understood and offer a logical approach to their achievement. The evaluation shall be conducted in accordance with the evaluation criteria stated below. The Government may award a contract on the basis of initial offerors received, without discussions. Therefore, each initial offer should contain the Offeror?s best terms from a cost and technical standpoint. (b) The Government will perform a trade-off analysis of non-price factors against price to determine the best value to the Government. Offers that are unrealistically low in total price will be considered indicative of a lack of understanding of the complexity and risk in meeting contract requirements and will not be considered for award. (c) Relative weight. Non-price factors (Security, Technical and Past Performance), when combined, are more important than price. Of the non-price factors, security, is more important than technical and past performance. Technical is more important than past performance. The importance of price in the evaluation for award will increase as the relative differences in non-price factors of offerors decreases. (d) Evaluation Factors. In selecting the best overall value, the following factors will be evaluated: Security, Technical Merit, Past Performance; and Cost. The Offeror's response will be evaluated utilizing the factors and subfactors below. Offerors should consider these factors and subfactors when preparing proposals. The rating for each evaluation factor will be based on the Government?s determination of the degree to which the RFQ satisfies the requirements of each subfactor. The highest possible rating is Excellent, with the lowest possible rating being Unacceptable. (1) Security. The security factor will be evaluated on a pass/fail criterion. All personnel bid against this task order must have the requisite clearances prior to contract award. (2) Technical. The technical expertise and capability factor will consider how the contractor proposes to approach the SOO. The proposed analysts? experience and skill sets will be included in this criterion. The key consideration for this criterion will be demonstrated expertise in the area of advanced data visualization and data mining information technology, especially COTS applications. The more current and the greater the demonstrated expertise in the areas of advanced data visualization and data mining, the higher the rating. The Technical Factor consists of the subfactors listed below. Subfactors are listed in descending order of importance. (i) Subfactor (1) Data Visualization is tools and methodologies to support information displays in time, space, and themes to maximize comprehension, expediency, effectiveness, and usability for the analysts and customers in a collaborative environment to enhance all-source intelligence. The Government shall evaluate each offerors' ability to describe their understanding of this technology area and their ability to analyze the utility of applications to address this need. (ii) Subfactor (2) Data mining is efficient and effective means to extract, mine, translate and archive information from relevant data and metadata from multimedia collections (e.g. audio, imagery, video, text, structured data, and combinations of these media). The intent is to enable the analyst to uncover information in data by detecting hidden patterns or deviations, extracting potential linkages, extracting key components and transforming the data for further analysis. It also includes efforts to deconflict redundant or contradictory data and to recognize and deal with anomalous data. The Government shall evaluate each offerors' ability to describe their understanding of this technology area and their ability to analyze the utility of applications to address this need. (3) Past Performances. The Past Performance factor will be used to determine the risk of non-performance, defective performance, and/or late performance by evaluating each offeror?s reported quality of work and relevant experience with the type of services being solicited. In evaluating past performance, the Government may contact some or all of the references provided by the offeror and may contact other sources of information. The Government may evaluate the past performance of the offeror?s proposed key subcontractors, predecessor companies, or key personnel who have relevant experience to the extent warranted. Only relevant experience will be considered for past performance purposes. An offeror with no record of relevant past performance will be given a "neutral" rating for past performance. To assess reported quality of work and relevant experience with the type of product and services being solicited, the offerors shall submit at least three (3) sources, and include a POC name, phone number, contract number (if appropriate) and brief description of position. (4) Cost/Price. This factor will evaluate the cost quotation to determine price analysis, price reasonableness, and price realism of the proposed total evaluated price. An offeror?s proposed price will be determined by multiplying the quantities identified in the Price Schedule by the proposed unit price for each contract line item number (CLIN) to confirm the extended amount for each CLIN. The base period and option years (if applicable) will be totaled to determine the overall estimated price to be evaluated. All responsible offers that conform to the solicitation requirements will be ranked according to price. Offerors are specifically advised that, under this evaluation method, the government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the prices are unbalanced between initial and each option year (if applicable). Prices are unbalanced if they are significantly overstated or understated in relation to the actual cost of the work. This may be ground for eliminating a proposal from competition either on the basis that the offeror does not understand the requirement or the offeror has made an unrealistic proposal. By signing its offer, the offeror certifies that each price stated on each CLIN includes an appropriate apportionment of all costs, direct and indirect, overhead, and profit. Each proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the government considers the proposed price to be reasonable. The government will evaluate price reasonableness in relation to commercial or market price lists, IGE, or any other information used as a basis or comparison. Each proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the government considers the proposed price to be realistic and if they are compatible with the scope of effort, are not unbalanced, and are neither excessive nor insufficient for the effort to be accomplished. An unrealistically low price, submitted either initially or subsequently, may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition either on the basis that the offeror does not understand the requirement, or has made an improvident proposal. (e) A definition of the evaluation ratings is as follows: RATING DEFINITION Excellent - The Contractor's proposal provides evidence that the Government can expect superior performance of the tasks and deliverables listed in the Statement of Work, with minimal risk of substandard performance. An excellent rating indicates that the proposal contains significant strengths and few or no weaknesses. Good - The Contractor's proposal provides evidence that the Government can expect performance of the tasks and deliverables listed in the Statement of Work to meet standards, with moderate risk of substandard performance. A good rating indicates that the proposal contains a number of strengths, but also some weaknesses. Marginal - The Contractor's proposal provides evidence that the Government can expect minimal performance of the tasks and deliverables listed in the Statement of Work, with excessive risk of substandard performance. A marginal rating indicates that the proposal contains strengths, but also significant weaknesses. Unacceptable - The Contractor's proposal provides evidence that the Government can expect substandard performance of the tasks and deliverables listed in the Statement of Work, with extreme risk of substandard performance. An unacceptable rating indicates that the proposal may present some strength, but it also contains significant and important weaknesses. The following FAR PROVISIONS are herby incorporated into 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors-Commerical Items FAR 52.212-3 OFFERORS REPRENSENTATION and CERTIFICATIONS-COMMERICAL ITEMS (JAN 2005) ALT I (APR 2004). Offerors must complete and submit a copy of 52.212-3 ALT I in their proposal. FAR CLAUSES: 52.212-4, CONTRACT TERMS AND CONDITIONS-COMMERICAL ITEMS is hereby incorporated. Addendum to FAR Clause 52.212-4 applies to this acquisition, specifically the following cited clauses: 52,204-6, 52.204-7, 52.212-2, 52.216-1, 52.219-8, 52.222-26, 52.224-1, 52.224-2, 52.228-5, 52.232-17, 52.232-33, 52.237-3, 52.242-13, 52.242-15, 52.243-1, 52.246-4, 52.249-4, 52.249-8, DFARS 252.201-7000 FAR CLAUSES 52-212-5, CONTRACT TERMS AND CONDITIONSREQUIRED TO IMPLEMENT STATUTES OR EXECUTIVE ORDERS?COMMERCIAL ITEMS applies to this acquisition, specifically the following cited clauses: 52.222-3, 52.222-19, 52.222-21, 52.222-26, 52.222.36, 52.232.33 To be eligible for award all offerors must be registered in the Central Contractor Registration All questions/inquiries concerning the RFP document must be submitted in writing by close of business on 10 June, 2005 to Michael.Purnell@dia.mil. Do not mail any questions/inquires. Offerors may fax questions/inquiries to (202) 231-2831; Attn: Michael G. Purnell. You must confirm receipt of your faxed questions/inquiries Ph: (202) 231-2773. All Responses (1 original and 3 copies) are due NLT 21 June 2005, 3:00 PM EST. E-mail or hand deliver your proposals. FAX RESPONSES TO THIS RFP WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED! Only firm-fixed priced orders will be evaluated. For more information and to retrieve the following attachments: Past Performance Questionnaire, DD254, SF 312 Non-disclosure agreement, proposal instructions refer to pre-solicitation HHM402-05-R-0029-A
- Place of Performance
- Address: VARIOUS
- Record
- SN00823074-W 20050607/050605211537 (fbodaily.com)
- Source
-
FedBizOpps.gov Link to This Notice
(may not be valid after Archive Date)
| FSG Index | This Issue's Index | Today's FBO Daily Index Page |