Inactive

Amendment 01: Updated to add responses to industry questions. Further, AFLCMC makes a few minor clarifications in the attached performance work statement. Number: FA8600-23-S-C056-004 NAICS Code and a... Amendment 01: Updated to add responses to industry questions. Further, AFLCMC makes a few minor clarifications in the attached performance work statement. Number: FA8600-23-S-C056-004 NAICS Code and associated description: 518210 Federal Agency Name and Contracting Officer: Department of Air Force (DAF) Air Force Life Cycle Management Center (AFLCMC), Neal Duiker, neal.duiker@us.af.mil Commercial Solutions Opening Title: This is a combined synopsis/solicitation: Commercial Solutions Opening (CSO) – AFLCMC Data Operation CSO, Closed, Two-Step, titled “Project Night Owl - CSO Call 4” Commercial Solutions Opening Number: FA8600-23-S-C056 Commercial Solutions Opening Type: This is the initial announcement under Call 4. This will be a Two-Step Call solicitation. NOTE: Word Copy of the Final Call is attached to this announcement. There are formatting limitations within SAM.gov. In the event there is a discrepancy between this posting and the attached word document, the word document shall control. First Step: WHITE PAPER DUE DATE AND TIME: White Papers will be accepted until 26 July 2024 at 1700 ET. White Papers may be submitted at any time during this period. White Papers received after specified date and time will be considered late in accordance with FAR 52.212-1(f). Interested Vendors can submit clarifying questions to AFLCMC by 1 July 2024. AFLCMC will publish all received questions and AFLCMC’s responses (anticipated 10 July 2024) prior to the White Paper submission date. All submissions (questions and white papers) shall be made to the designated Submission POCs below. Second Step: PROPOSAL DUE DATE AND TIME: In accordance with this Call, AFLCMC will down select vendors from the first step to submit a Step 2 proposal. Proposal due date and time will be provided in a separately issued Requests for Proposal (RFP) sent to offers that submit a Solution Brief and Pricing Proposal that meet or exceed evaluation criteria contained in this Call. Submission POC: White Papers must be submitted via email to the Contracting Points of Contact (POCs): Contracting Officer Name: Neal Duiker Email: neal.duiker@us.af.mil Contract Specialist Name: Kimberly Conley Email: kimberly.conley.3@us.af.mil FULL TEXT – CALL 4 (Project Night Owl) Overview This Commercial Services Opening (CSO) Call is intended to be as streamlined as possible to allow for the exploration of modern solutions to support a variety of critical national security systems. Air Force Life Cycle Management Center (AFLCMC) invites vendors to submit innovative and novel technical solutions which address all aspects of Digital Infrastructure (DI), focusing on the user story focus areas below. This requires delivering an enduring, secure, robust, efficient, responsive, agile, elastic and extensible DI solution spanning all classification levels. Many AFLCMC projects operate in varying classification environments, including highly classified environments (collateral, Sensitive Compartmentalized Information (SCI), and Special Access Program (SAP)). Though some DI Focus Areas may require unclassified work, respondents should be aware that to be eligible for any contract/instrument award, vendors must be cleared to work in SCI/SAP environments at white paper submission. If vendor intends to perform classified work at their facility (or subcontractor or sub-awardee’s facility), they will need to provide a Facility Accreditation Letter (FAL) for each facility to the Contracting Officer/Agreements Officer by no later than (NLT) contract award (anticipated September/October 2024). This CSO Call may result in the award of a FAR-based contract or an Other Transaction for Prototype Project pursuant to 10 USC 4022. AFLCMC intends to follow the processes identified in the Data Operations CSO unless otherwise noted or annotated in this Call. AFLCMC is not obligated to make any awards as a result of this Call and all awards are explicitly subject to the availability of funds and successful negotiations. The Government is not responsible for any monies expended by any vendor prior to the issuance of any awarded contract/agreement. AFLCMC reserves the right to modify the solicitation requirements of this CSO Call at its’ sole discretion. _____________________________________________________________________________ 2. Digital Infrastructure (DI) Technology Focus Areas A. General Information: AFLCMC is seeking a Managed Service Provider to provide operations and sustainment support for a major SAP Weapon System. Currently, AFLCMC is on contract with a Cloud Service Provider (CSP) who provides edge cloud devices (Azure Stack Hubs (ASH) and hyperscale capabilities. The CSP also provides networking across campus area networks and wide area networks, including purchase and installation of aggregation switches, access switches, Azure access points (AAPs) and Network as a Service (NaaS). Further, the CSP provides disaster recovery and help desks for cloud services, edge, and ASH equipment. Further, the CSP is contracted to provide Network Operations Center (NOC) and Cyber Threat Operations Center (CTOC) services for the network and cloud only. Within the cloud environments, AFLCMC operates an Azure cloud-based software DevSecOps environment supporting multiple USAF programs (hereafter referred to as Crucible). The Crucible environment contains cloud resources at the IL5 (Controlled Unclassified Information), IL6 (Secret) and IL6+(Secret Special Access Program) classifications. Enrolled USAF programs work within separate, segregated enclaves with multiple security enclaves (ex. Program A has its own IL5, IL6 and IL6+ environment separate from Program B’s enclaves). Further, Programs access the Crucible environment from varying USAF networks. AFLCMC designed the Crucible environment to permit future USAF programs not currently enrolled to access and establish enclaves to meet specific mission needs. When new programs enroll, the Crucible environment may need to peer to a new network. Therefore, Crucible requires sufficient security controls and artifacts to obtain an authority to operate (ATO). The CSP is providing initial environment automation and establishment. The CSP will continue to provide these services. Therefore, interested vendors shall not include any of these services in their proposal. AFLCMC is providing CSP responsibilities as contextual information necessary to ensure below requested services are not duplicated to CSP activities. B. User Story 1 – Managed Services Provider: AFLCMC is seeking a Managed Service Provider (MSP) who can deliver services such as network, application, infrastructure, and security via ongoing and regular support and active administration on customers’ premises, or in a third-party data center. Project Night Owl supports a highly classified AFLCMC weapon system, which requires onsite support to classified SAP environments. Further, this particular program exclusively utilizes Microsoft Azure cloud and edge services. Therefore, AFLCMC requires MSP vendors to be a Microsoft Solutions Partner for Infrastructure and "Digital and App Innovation" with extensive knowledge of Azure cloud services, specifically Secret and Top Secret cloud. MSP vendors must demonstrate mastery in Azure applications and services offered within both the commercial and government Azure services. As further articulated in this Call, only Microsoft Solutions Partner for Infrastructure and "Digital and App Innovation" will be determined awardable. AFLCMC also has critical timelines for preparing varying locations to be mission capable. Therefore, MSP will need to demonstrate ability to meet or exceed critical timeframes for hardware deployments, workstation (thin client and peripherals) procurement and installation, and onsite help desk support. MSP provider will also work with system users to customize applications and provide general user support to meet missional needs. Further, MSP will work closely with CSP and USG users to configure the ASH, network configuration and hyperscale to meet specific weapon system requirements. Therefore, MSP must demonstrate and be willing to openly communicate with CSP and all USG stakeholders (including A&AS providers) to meet missional requirements. Services Desired: AFLCMC is seeking a five (5) year MSP contract. AFLCMC desires the following general services with prescribed ground rules and assumptions that should be utilized in formulating your step one solution paper. If a vendor is down selected to submit a Step 2 proposal, AFLCMC will disclose detailed sites, timelines, and architectures for specific cost breakdown. AFLCMC prefers solutions to be automated to the maximum extent practicable. AFLCMC is not providing specific Service Level Agreements (SLA) / Service Level Objectives (SLO). Therefore, all vendors shall propose SLAs/SLOs for MSP services. Lastly, AFLCMC does not desire solutions highly leveraged on annual license agreement costs. Therefore, vendors may be excluded by proposing solutions consisting of high annual licensing fees. Attached to this Call is a draft Performance Work Statement (PWS) describing the general services under this Call. When proposing a white paper, vendors shall assume the following: SLA/SLOs: AFLCMC specifically asks interested vendors to propose SLAs/SLOs pertaining to each proposed service. AFLCMC provides varying SLA/SLO categories that shall be used in proposal of your services. Vendors are expected to provide the SLA/SLO values in accordance with the provided definitions. MSP shall propose Step One White Papers assuming three operation locations, a West Coast/California location, a mid-west location (identify the geographic location selected), and a Washington/Capitol Region location. MSP shall propose Step One White Papers assuming two hundred (200) users per location and scaling to three hundred fifty (350) users per location on year 3. For hardware deployment, MSP should assume all workstations require thin clients and all necessary peripherals to perform mission tasks. MSP will procure and install all required hardware. No hardware will be provided as Government Furnished Equipment (GFE). AFLCMC desires automated processes to the maximum extent practicable. Therefore, AFLCMC will evaluate useability, scalability, and overall capability to meet Weapon System mission needs. DevOps Implementation (Paragraph 2.8 of the Managed Service Provider Performance Work Statement): AFLCMC is looking for the “best athlete” to serve as DevOps coach. The intent of this section is to educate USG software developers on executing weapon system development needs. Therefore, vendors should identify specific personnel and identify the credentials for the DevOps coach. Focus Areas Sought: Fielding Operations, Network Operations Center/Security Operations Center, Help Desk. Anticipated Delivery Date: 1 year base with subsequent four (4) year options _____________________________________________________________________________ 3. Call Description, Instructions to Vendors, and Evaluation Criteria Overview: This call will be a two-step call. White papers may be submitted at any time prior to the due date and time specified in this Call. Vendors are responsible for monitoring SAM.gov for any amendments to this Call that may have updated information. White Papers will be evaluated against the criteria detailed below. After the submitted white papers have been evaluated by AFLCMC, vendors will be notified if they have been selected to submit a full proposal for Step 2. Step 1: White Paper due date and time is 26 July 2024 at 1700 ET. AFLCMC will review Step 1 White Papers and down select vendors based on the below evaluation criteria. Interested Vendors can submit clarifying questions to AFLCMC by 1 July 2024. AFLCMC will publish all received questions and AFLCMC’s responses (anticipated 10 July 2024) prior to the White Paper submission date. Step 2: Proposal due date and time will be provided in Requests for Proposal (RFPs) sent to offers that submit a Solution Brief and Pricing Proposal that meet or exceed evaluation criteria contained in this Call. AFLCMC reserves the right to conduct individual meetings with all vendors invited to submit a Step 2 proposal. If invited to submit a Step 2 proposal, AFLCMC will require vendors to sign non-disclosure agreements and follow reasonable and necessary instructions to ensure specific program requirements are secured prior to RFP release. Refusal to sign a non-disclosure agreement and/or follow any reasonable and necessary security instruction will disqualify selected vendors from receiving specific program requirements and will not be able to participate in the Step 2 phase of the competition. Overarching Instructions: AFLCMC desires a singular vendor who can provide all services articulated herein or act as prime integrator for a team of vendors covering all stated services. AFLCMC encourages small business participation to the maximum extent practicable. Therefore, AFLCMC has an aspirational small business goal of 15-25% small business work allocation. If utilized, AFLCMC desires to know teaming arrangements and understand clear delineation on which companies will be responsible/supporting each requirement. Further, to the extent the teaming agreements can be disclosed, AFLCMC requests disclosure of all teaming agreements entered into with other vendors. As a reminder, responses must be UNCLASSIFIED. AFLCMC will not accept classified proposals under this Call. STEP 1 INSTRUCTIONS: Below is the required structure and required content for proposal submission for this Call. Vendor responses shall be submitted to Mr. Neal Duiker, at neal.duiker@us.af.mil & Ms. Kimberly Conley, at kimberly.conley.3@us.af.mil, NLT 1700 (ET) on 26 July 2024 at 1700 ET via email in either PDF, Word, or PowerPoint file types. Note: no other file types will be accepted. Do not provide proposal documents in a .zip file. Please ensure you receive a confirmation email of receipt. If you do not get a confirmation email, then your proposal may not have been received by AFLCMC. Proposals shall include the following: Part 1 - Cover Page: Vendor’s cover page must include the following information: Vendor Name Vendor Address Vendor technical, programmatic, and contracts points of contact (PoC) List whether your organization qualifies as any of the following in accordance with FAR Part 19: Small Business (SB), Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB), Woman-Owned Small Business (WOSB), HUBZone Small Business, Veteran-Owned Business, Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB), Historically Black College or University (HBCU) and Minority Institution DD254 Info CAGE Code Cognizant Security Office Name Address Phone Number Part 2 - Questionnaire Responses: Vendors shall address all the following questions: Please indicate whether you are a Microsoft Solutions Partner for Infrastructure and "Digital and App Innovation" (Y/N). Provide a list of general classification levels and additionally proscribed categories from the below options that your organization has utilized for past projects. (UNCLASSIFIED / CUI / SECRET / SECRET SAR / TOP SECRET/ TOP SECRET SAR / TOP SECRET SCI) Note: Do not provide any classified information regarding past projects on your white paper submission, to include contract/agreement numbers (PIIDs). AFLCMC problems require vendors to have familiarity with Azure CLI and automation solutions to include Azure Resource Manager (ARM) templates or BICEP templates. Does the services your organization put forward utilize Azure CLI and associated automation solutions? (Y/N) Does your company have experience with any of the tools from the Addendum A including Jira, Terraform, Helmfile, Backstage, OSCAL, Gitlab, or Jenkins? (Three sentence max) Has your software been evaluated or accredited for use on government AFNET? (Y/N) Part 3 - User Story Response(s) In addition to the question responses above, Vendors are limited to providing a white paper solutions brief not to exceed five (5) pages (Times New Roman, 12 pt font) plus a title page each. The User Story Response(s) must include the following: A suggested technical solution, including SLA/SLOs for each category (calculated using the provided definition), automated solutions, and description of the qualifications of DevOps coach. A rough transition to work plan Any ground rules/assumptions on which your solution is based A rough order of magnitude (ROM) price estimate for your solution provided by requirement One or multiple examples of experience providing like or similar services (Demonstrated experience with highly secured IT systems, classified networks, and/or special access programs is preferred). Proposals received in response to the CSO shall be evaluated in accordance with evaluation factors specified below using a scientific, technological, or other subject-matter expert peer review process. STEP 1 WHITE PAPER EVALUATION CRITERIA: AFLCMC will review the vendor’s White Paper as follows: Security: Does the vendor have the requisite security clearances (facility and personnel) to perform the services? AFLCMC work requires performance within IL 5, IL6 and IL6+ environments. Failure to meet security requirements upon Step 1 White Paper will constitute sufficient justification to exclude the proposal from further consideration. Vendors are required to provide DCSA issued FCL and NIST compliance documentation. Further, Vendors shall identify secure networks immediately available for secure communications in Step 2. Evaluators will assess whether vendors maintain adequate security approval to work within these environments at the time of White Paper submission. Vendors unable to operate per these security instructions will be deemed not awardable. Azure Expertise: Is the vendor a Microsoft Solutions Partner for Infrastructure and "Digital and App Innovation" and have sufficient expertise using Azure cloud, Azure Stack Hubs, Azure services with both commercial and government enrollments, Azure Access Points, and/or Azure Virtual Desktops? Failure to meet this requirement upon Step 1 White Paper will constitute sufficient justification to exclude the proposal from further consideration. Evaluators will assess whether the vendor demonstrates superior mastery of Azure offerings to be able to meet Weapon System needs. Vendors unable to demonstrate superior mastery will be deemed not awardable. Experience: Has the vendor demonstrated experience in providing like or similar services? Does vendor have demonstrated experience as or with Addendum A software/tools? Evaluators will assess whether the vendor demonstrates capability in providing like or similar services to other USG agencies, especially in highly sensitive/controlled environments. Price: Is the ROM price reasonable for the proposed scope of work and in relation to the independent government estimate? Interested vendors are required to provide a rough order of magnitude (ROM) for their solution brief. The competition review team will evaluate and assess whether ROM prices are reasonable based on: the solution offered in comparison to the proposed SLAs/SLOs, and the ROM in relation to the IGE Technical: Will offered services meet the MSP needs of AFLCMC? Vendors are required to propose SLA/SLOs associated with the services requirements contained herein. Vendors shall specifically identify automated processes and/or solutions to the maximum extent possible. This includes providing explanation for the underlying Business Intelligence/Data Analytics solution requested. Vendors shall provide the experience and credentials for DevOps coach(es). Vendors shall indicate whether their solutions/services require an annual license agreement (and associated costs). AFLCMC strongly prefers solutions without annual licensing costs. Vendors shall indicate how it will utilize small business concerns in performance of this work. Evaluators will assess whether the solutions meet overall AFLCMC objectives. Evaluators will place strong emphasis on proposed: 1. SLA/SLOs in relation to the price, 2. automated solutions in terms of useability, scalability, and cost, 3. best athlete for DevOps coaches, and 4. small business utilization. Upon completion of the White Paper evaluations, AFLCMC will determine whether the offered solutions are of interest for further consideration. The Security and Azure Experience factors will be evaluated first. Any vendor failing to meet one or both of these requirements will not be evaluated further. The Government will review the remaining factors (experience, price and technical) to determine if it has the potential to meet AFLCMC’s needs based on the above criteria, which are listed in equal order of importance. STEP 2 INSTRUCTIONS: The Government will invite select vendors to submit full proposals based on favorable evaluation results of White Papers approximately 30 days of the White Paper submission date. Solution Briefs and Pricing Proposals will be requested via a Request for Proposal (RFP) letter by the Contracting Officer and will contain separate submission instructions and applicable due dates and timelines. The Government will address any Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) concerns on a case-by-case basis with any vendor invited to submit a Step 2 proposal. For any OCI issues, instructions will be included within the Step 2 RFP. AFLCMC reserves the right to conduct individual meetings with all vendors invited to submit a Step 2 proposal. If invited to submit a Step 2 proposal, AFLCMC will require vendors to sign non-disclosure agreements and follow reasonable and necessary instructions to ensure specific program requirements are secured prior to RFP release. Refusal to sign a non-disclosure agreement and/or follow any reasonable and necessary security instruction will disqualify selected vendors from receiving specific program requirements and will not be able to participate in the Step 2 phase of the competition. Vendors invited into Step 2 will receive additional information from AFLCMC detailing the total number of users, specific locations, exact network architecture and other pertinent information necessary to accurately price a proposal. This additional information is sensitive and cannot be provided during Step 1. AFLCMC expects Step 2 vendors to tailor their proposals to meet these specific requirements. Unsuccessful vendors will be notified by the Government, either via email or letter, to inform them that the proposed effort is not of interest to the Government at this time. Upon request from an unsuccessful vendor, the Government will provide a brief explanation of the reason for not requesting a Step 2 proposal, but will not entertain any questions from unsuccessful vendors. Step 2 Proposal Review, Evaluation and Selection Process: Each user story proposal will be evaluated by the Government and stand on its own technical merit. Proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the following evaluation criteria: Technical: Do the services and offered solutions meet the needs of AFLCMC as outlined in the draft PWS? AFLCMC will prefer solutions offering the greatest benefit regarding scaling, customization ability, and management capabilities. USG will evaluate final solutions on the following criteria: 1. Do the proposed services meet the needs of the AFLCMC’s missional and OpsTempo needs? Vendor solutions shall provide high-quality, affordable services to meet all requirements within the draft PWS attached to this Call. Based on the additional requirements disclosed at Step 2, will vendor be able to meet critical timelines and maintain operational staffing to ensure missional success. 2. Does the proposed solution provide automated services allowing for self-service to the maximum extent practicable? Do they describe how service consumers will request, access, and manage services? 3. Does the proposal talk about how the vendor validates and manages change within the provided services and environments? How does the proposed solution to deploy and maintain infrastructure meet requirements? Are there mature processes and technology in place to accomplish the need in a timely repeatable and sustainable fashion? 4. How much recurring costs and annual license fees are contained in the solution? AFLCMC will prefer solutions that do not depend on significant annual recurring costs or annual licensing fees. 5. Are the offered SLA/SLOs scoped sufficiently to ensure weapon system can meet mission needs/continuity of operations? AFLCMC will evaluate the proposed/contracted SLA/SLOs and the risk of impact to weapon system should SLA/SLOs are not met. 6. Does the vendor have a good staffing strategy that ensures it can meet program critical deadlines? AFLCMC will evaluate staffing plans to meet critical program timelines. Further, AFLCMC will evaluate attrition risks for critical staffing needs. 7. Does vendor have the necessary training and experience customizing Azure applications, environments, tools, etc. to meet unique, specific user needs? AFLCMC will evaluate vendors capability to customize base configurations to meet weapon system specifications within reasonable timeframes. Does the vendor have relevant past experience in providing like or similar services in highly secure environments? The Government in its sole discretion reserves the right to also consider the vendor's past performance on other efforts. 8. AFLCMC will evaluate a vendor’s experience performing services within highly secure environments. Crucible operates within IL5, IL6 and IL6+ enclaves. Awardable vendors must demonstrate relevant experience working in highly secure environments. 2. Price: The proposed price will be evaluated for reasonableness. AFLCMC will review the final price proposal in relation to both the scope of work proposed by the final solution and the independent government estimate. AFLCMC will use DFARS 212.209 as guidance in evaluating price. No other criteria will be used. Based on the Government’s evaluation, proposals will be categorized as Awardable or Not Awardable (see definitions below). The selection of one or more sources for award will be based on the Government’s evaluation, as well as importance to agency programs and funding availability. Awardable: Proposal is recommended for acceptance if sufficient funding is available. Not Awardable: Even if sufficient funding existed, the proposal should not be funded. NOTE: The Government reserves the right to award all, some, one, or none of the proposals. When the Government elects to award only a part of a proposal, the selected part may be categorized as Awardable, though the proposal as a whole may not merit such a categorization. If a vendor is determined to be awardable and chooses to proceed to contract/agreement award, AFLCMC and the vendor will enter into contract/agreement negotiations. Prior to award of a contract/agreement, the Contracting Officer/Agreements Officer will make a price reasonableness determination. DEBRIEFINGS: For unsuccessful vendors in Step 2, the Government will conduct written, post-award debriefings upon request in accordance with FAR 52.212-1(l) and this Call. Debriefings will address the evaluation factors contained herein only. Debriefings will not include a comparison of submissions. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: This CSO Call may result in the award of a FAR Part 12 contract or an Other Transaction Agreement (OTA) under 10 USC 4022 (also referred to as an Other Transaction for Prototype or OTP). The awarded contract type shall be either Firm Fixed Price (FFP) or Fixed Price Incentive (FPI) in accordance with FAR Part 12. The Government will be the sole decision authority on whether to pursue a FAR Part 12 Contract, an OTA, or no award at all. The Government reserves the right to award some, all, or none of the proposals received in response to this Call based on mission requirements and the availability of Government funds. The Contracting/Agreements Officer reserves the right to negotiate directly with the vendor on the terms and conditions prior to execution of the resulting contract/agreement on behalf of the Government. Be advised that only a Contracting/Agreements Officer has the authority to enter into, or modify, a binding contract/agreement on behalf of the United States Government. This Call could result in the potential award of a follow-on production or solution integration contract or OTA. Vendors must possess all required personnel security clearances, facility clearances, and other infrastructure requirements necessary to perform any proposed classified work in accordance with a Contract Security Classification Specification (DD Form 254) without reliance on Government resources. If vendor intends to perform classified work at their facility (or subcontractor or sub-awardee’s facility), they will need to provide a Facility Accreditation Letter (FAL) for each facility to the Contracting Officer/Agreements Officer upon white paper submission. DFARS 252.239-7017 - NOTICE OF SUPPLY CHAIN RISK (DEC 2022): (a) Definitions. “Supply chain risk,” as used in this provision, means the risk that an adversary may sabotage, maliciously introduce unwanted function, or otherwise subvert the design, integrity, manufacturing, production, distribution, installation, operation, or maintenance of a covered system so as to surveil, deny, disrupt, or otherwise degrade the function, use, or operation of such system (10 U.S.C. 3252). (b) In order to manage supply chain risk, the Government may use the authorities provided by section 10 U.S.C. 3252. In exercising these authorities, the Government may consider information, public and non-public, including all-source intelligence, relating to an vendor and its supply chain. (c) If the Government exercises the authority provided in 10 U.S.C. 3252 to limit disclosure of information, no action undertaken by the Government under such authority shall be subject to review in a bid protest before the Government Accountability Office or in any Federal court. 6. Proprietary Information: Information constituting a trade secret, commercial or financial information, confidential personal information, or data affecting national security must be clearly marked. It shall be treated in confidence to the extent permitted by law. This restriction does not limit the Government’s right to use information contained if it is obtained from another source without restriction. AFLCMC assumes no liability for disclosure or use of unmarked data and may use or disclose such data for any purpose. If an vendor is awarded a contract as a result of or in connection with the submission of proprietary data in the proposal, the Government shall have the right to duplicate, use or disclose the data to the extent provided in the resulting contract/agreement. Proposals containing data that is not to be disclosed to the public for any purpose or used by the Government except for evaluation purposes shall include the following legend on the cover page: “This proposal includes data that shall not be disclosed outside the Government and supporting personnel and shall not be duplicated, used or disclosed—in whole or in part – for any purpose other than to evaluate this proposal. If, however, a contract is awarded to this vendor as a result of – or in connection with – the submission of this data, the Government shall have the right to duplicate, use, or disclose the data to the extent provided in the resulting contract. This restriction does not limit the Government’s right to use information contained in this data if it is obtained from another source without restriction. The data subject to this restriction are contain in sheets [insert numbers or other identification of sheets].” Each restricted data sheet should be marked as follows: Use or disclose of data contained on...