RFP 12SAD120R0016 RD App Sus O_M- Amendment 0005.pdf

P a g e | 1

RFP 12SAD120R0016 RD Application Sustainment Operations & Maintenance - Amendment

Amendment 0005 is to provide responses for Vendor questions and to provide an updated PROPOSAL PREPARATION AND EVALUATION INFORMATION document to consolidate all changes to those instructions based on Offeror questions and requests.

Reference to RFP Page(s)

Narrative Background giving rise to the question

Question to USDA

Question 21

Page 47 includes the following statement: “A complete Proposal submittal shall consist of at least 3 electronic files in total.” However, the instructions on page 47 also states: “A.

Proposals - Offeror’s are to submit One electronic copy of the Technical Proposal and One electronic copy of the Price Proposal to the email address below.”

Please confirm whether the only submission requirements are the Technical Proposal and the Price Proposal and an Excel spreadsheet If the Government requires at least 3 electronic files”, please identify the three documents.

USDA Response: The referenced instructions on page 47, “A. Proposals - Offeror’s are to submit One electronic copy of the Technical Proposal and One electronic copy of the Price Proposal to the email address below” are updated to state:

A. Proposals - Offeror’s are to submit the electronic copies of the Technical Proposal and Price Proposal to the email address below.

Question 22

Page 47 includes the following statement: “A complete Proposal submittal shall consist of at least 3 electronic files in total.

• One MS Word and/or Adobe Acrobat PDF file containing a Proposal Response per each section of the response as detailed below.

• One completed MS Excel pricing spread sheet file, with One or two MS Word and/or Adobe Acrobat PDF file containing pricing narrative and Deliverables-Schedule Pricing.

Is the Government asking offerors to submit a separate Word file for each section of the both the Technical Proposal and the Price Proposal?

Can the Government provide a list of the specific Sections to be separated for the Technical Proposal and the Price Proposal?

USDA Response: The referenced instructions on page 47 are updated to state:

A complete Proposal submittal shall consist of at least 3 electronic files in total.

• One MS Word and/or Adobe Acrobat PDF file containing a Proposal Response for TECHNICAL PROPOSAL and PAST PERFOMANCE – Section One as detailed below.

• One completed MS Excel pricing spread sheet file, with One or two MS Word and/or Adobe Acrobat PDF file containing pricing narrative and Deliverables-

P a g e | 2

RFP Page(s)

Narrative Background giving rise to the question

Question to USDA

Schedule Pricing for PRICE PROPOSAL – Section Two, as detailed below. (So, at least two files for Section Two.)

Question 23

TAB A of the Price Proposal requires offerors to submit Representations & Certifications. However, there are a number of sources (e.g., the RFP, Offeror Annual Reps and Certs.)

Can the Government specify the specific Representations and Certifications that are required?

USDA Response: Please follow the instructions in 52.204-8 Annual Representations and Certifications

Question 24

On page 50 of the RFP, the instructions for Factor 2: “Program’s Management Plan Objective” on page 50 state that the “offeror’s overall plan of how they intend to accomplish, administer and manage requirements which the Government may request under this contract as detailed in the PWS.”

Also on page 50, the instructions for Factor 5L Management Approach and Key Personnel state the offeror should:

“Describe the plan for managing the PWS tasks (acquisition, execution, and administration)”

It appears that these instructions overlap. Can the Government clarify where the offeror should “describe the plan for managing the PWS tasks (acquisition, execution, and administration)”?

USDA Response: The referenced instructions on page 50 are updated to state:

Management Team: Describe the management team organization. Describe the Management Team’s plan for managing the PWS tasks (administration). Offeror may want to include an organizational chart. The focus of this sub-factor is on the Management Team.

Question 25

Question #8 of 08/28 Q&As

The response to Question # 8 states there is not a page limit to the “Technical or Price Proposal.”

Does the Government mean that there isn’t a page limit to the Technical Approach Section or to the overall Technical Proposal?

USDA Response: The referenced instructions are updated to state there is not a page limit for Factor Price – Proposal. Page limits that are listed in other factors shall remain.

Question 26

Each of the Factors from Factor 2 to Factor 7 on page 50 of the RFP indicate

Based on the Government’s response to Question #8 on 08/28, we assume that these

P a g e | 3

RFP Page(s)

Narrative Background giving rise to the question

Question to USDA that there is a 5 or 10 page limit per Factor.

limits have all been removed for Factors 2 through 7. Is this correct?

Does the Government plan to reissue conformed version of the RFP?

USDA Response: The referenced instructions are updated to state there is not a page limit for Factor Price – Proposal. Page limits that are listed in other factors shall remain.

I will post updated PROPOSAL PREPARATION AND EVALUATION INFORMATION to assist with clarity.

Question 27

Pages 50 and

Th requirements for Factor 4:

Qualifications Experience and Experience seem to duplicate the submission requirements for Factor 7:

Past Performance.

Can the Government clarify the submission requirements for Factors 4 and 7?

USDA Response: The requirements for ‘Factor 4: Technical Qualifications and Experience’ and ‘Factor 7: Past Performance’ focus on different topics. One is focusing on “Experience” and the other is on “Past Performance – references”. Experience under this sub-factor is what work has your company performed in the past. Past Performance is how well did they perform on past contracts.

Question 28

No Specific page in the

RFP

We expect that some of the changes anticipated may require time spent by Government contracting officials to revise the RFP.

In order to allow the Government adequate time to make the necessary revisions to the RFP and for offerors to respond to the revised RFP, we respectfully request a two week extension of the due date.

USDA Response: An extension at this time is not approved. If it appears from several vendors communications that an extension is necessary to ensure fair competition, this subject will be revisited.

Question 29

Page 50 states the following: “If reassignment of personnel is considered possible, provide the names and resumes of the alternative professionals in each assignment.”

This is the only location that resumes are referenced.

Does the Government request resumes to be included in the Proposal? If so, for which positions should the resumes be submitted for? (e.g., Key Personnel? Management Team Personnel? QC Team members?)

P a g e | 4

RFP Page(s)

Narrative Background giving rise to the question

Question to USDA

USDA Response: The referenced instructions are updated to state: (3) Identify key personnel to be assigned to the project, to include principal managers, and technical personnel, who will be directly responsible for the day-to-day activities. If reassignment of personnel is considered possible, provide the names and resumes (or a paragraph describing the person’s experience/credentials in place of a resume) of the alternative professionals in each assignment.

Include a tentative organizational chart.

Question 30

Factor 9: Price identifies the pricing related information that Offerors are to submit. All pricing information released as part of the initial solicitation documents are in PDF format with no formulae.

Does the Government plan to release standard Excel spreadsheets so that the information returned by offerors is in a standard format?

USDA Response: No. The standardized pricing format is described in ‘Pricing Section must include four sub-sections’ 1. Sub-section one.

Question 31

Page 55 of the RFP includes a PDF page for use by the customer PoC to prepare the PPQ.

Can Offerors extract the page and create a Word version?

We believe that the Points of contact would find a Word version to be easier to work with.

USDA Response: Yes, the ‘Offeror Client Past Performance Questionnaire’ may be converted into word and sent to Offeror’s Client.

Question 32

From the RFP:

“The helpdesk focuses on providing support for RD’s lending applications, not end user desktop support. The helpdesk tracks all customer support gathered from live calls, email, or other agency-provided ticket/issue tracking system to provide ticket accountability from opening to closure. Tickets are currently assigned based on system, and the type of problem or issue. Support may be for new or legacy applications, Microsoft Office Suite applications, and other commercial off the shelf (COTS) operating systems or software.”

Should the team plan on supporting MS Office applications and other COTS as part of helpdesk operations or will it just be for the RD’s lending applications?

USDA Response: The RD helpdesk team supports RD applications, non-application COTS products or MS office applications (such as outlook/email) are supported by USDA Client Experience Center (CEC) helpdesk.

P a g e | 5

RFP Page(s)

Narrative Background giving rise to the question

Question to USDA

Question 33

Are we required to submit 5 past performances or can we submit less than 5?

USDA Response: Offerors may submit less than 5, but no more than 5.

Question 34 Can the USDA please confirm that Factor 4 Experience (Project Descriptions) and Factor 7 Past Performance (references) can be provided by both the Offeror and our proposed major subcontractors on our bidding team?

USDA Response:

Factor 4 Experience under this sub-factor is what work your company has performed in the past, regardless as to whether your company’s experience was as a Prime or Sub.

Factor 7: Past performance under this factor is only the performance of your company, regardless as to whether your company’s performance was as a Prime or Sub. Do not use the past performance of a company that was your Sub-contractor as your past performance. Do not use the past performance of a Prime company for whom you were a Sub-contractor as your performance. Make sure that the past performance discusses your company’s performance, not some other company’s performance.

PROPOSAL PREPARATION AND EVALUATION INFORMATION

INTRODUCTION:

USDA Rural Development intends to establish a single award IDIQ to issue Task Orders for services as defined in the PWS Scope and identified by CLINS.

The IDIQ Award and subsequent Task Orders are subject to Availability of Funds.

The IDIQ maximum is $47,600,000. The IDIQ minimum is $10,000.

Task Order types allowed under this IDIQ will be Firm Fixed Price.

Tasks Orders will be issued when requirements are required by the ordering activity.

Only the Contracting Officer is authorized to issue a Task Order under this agreement.

This requirement shall be procured using the Tradeoff selection procedures in accordance with FAR Part 15.101-1: Tradeoff Process.

One solicitation will be issued for this acquisition. For the purposes of this solicitation, amendments may be posted as necessary. The evaluations are subjective based on the information provided in response to the information requested in the evaluation factors.

ELIGIBILITY: In order to be eligible for award, the business must have a valid and active System for Award Management (SAM) registration.

QOUTE/PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL AND AWARD INFORMATION:

A. Proposals - Offeror’s are to submit the electronic copies of the Technical Proposal and Price Proposal to the email address below. NO FAXED PROPOSALS WILL BE ACCEPTED.

Include in your email submission Subject line, the Solicitation number.

Submit your Proposal package to:

Christy.Glass@USDA.gov

Contracting Officer, Rural Development

Offeror’s shall prepare the Technical Proposal with the Selection Criteria and Evaluation Factors in mind, in terms of both content and organization, to facilitate evaluation.

A complete Proposal submittal shall consist of at least 3 electronic files in total.

• One MS Word and/or Adobe Acrobat PDF file containing a Proposal Response for TECHNICAL PROPOSAL and PAST PERFOMANCE – Section One as detailed below.

• One completed MS Excel pricing spread sheet file, with One or two MS Word and/or Adobe Acrobat PDF file containing pricing narrative and Deliverables-Schedule Pricing for PRICE PROPOSAL – Section Two, as detailed below. (Therefore, at least two files for Section Two.)

For the purposes of this solicitation, one page is defined as one electronic page which is no larger than 8.5” x 11” with 1” margins on all sides. Font shall be either Times New Roman or Arial and the font size shall be no smaller than 11. However, for tables and graphics, font size no smaller than 6 may be used.

mailto:Christy.Glass@USDA.gov

Electronic quotation files shall be free of any restrictions which prevent or limit the Government’s ability to copy, print, comment, etc. within the electronic documents.

Any proprietary information must be marked as such either in the page footer/header.

B. Questions regarding the Request for Proposals:

All questions shall be submitted to the above e-mail address no later than 3:00 PM EST on September 3, 2020. There is no guarantee that questions received after this time will be answered. The earlier the questions are submitted, the earlier a response should be able to be posted.

C. Evaluation factors and Criteria for Award

1. The Government will evaluate proposals submitted in response to this solicitation, which meet the requirements in accordance with the evaluation factors listed. Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications. Failure to provide the minimal information needed for each factor will result in the Proposal being considered non-responsive.

2. The Government reserves the right to make cost/technical tradeoffs that are in the best interest and to the advantage of the Government. The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest priced offer. The right is also reserved to reject any and all offers.

3. Award may be made without discussions, except for minor clarifications.

4. This procurement will be a single award on a best value basis resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror, whose technical/cost relationship represents the best value to the Government.

The tradeoff process will be used to evaluate the proposals of all offerors responding to this solicitation.

5. Options. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the base requirement. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

PROPOSAL FORMAT

TECHNICAL PROPOSAL and PAST PERFOMANCE – Section One

TAB A. General Information

• Cover Page to include: Solicitation Number, Project Title, Company’s DUNS Number, Cage Code, Tax ID number, Principle points of contact, EMAIL ADDRESS, mailing address, phone numbers, etc.

• Table of Contents

• Provide your Offer Signed and dated by the by the owner or authorized representative, with acknowledgement of all amendments TAB B: Program’s Management Plan Objective TAB C: Technical Approach TAB D: Technical Qualifications and Experience TAB E. Management Approach and Key personnel TAB F: Quality Control Plan TAB G. Past Performance

PRICE PROPOSAL – Section Two

TAB A: General Information

• Cover Page to include: Solicitation Number, Project Title, Company’s DUNS Number, Cage Code, Tax ID number, Principle points of contact, EMAIL ADDRESS, mailing address, phone numbers, etc.

• Table of Contents

• Representations & Certifications -Please follow instructions in 52.204-8 Annual Representations and

Certifications

• Provide your Offer Signed and dated by the by the owner or authorized representative, with acknowledgement of all amendments

TAB B:

• Pricing o Sub-section 1 o Sub-section 2 o Sub-section 3 o Sub-section 4

PROPOSAL EVALUATION/SELECTION CRITERIA

A. Tradeoff Selection and Evaluation Procedures:

1. Proposal Evaluation/Selection Criteria: This will be an evaluation utilizing the TRADE OFF PROCESS. A tradeoff process is appropriate when it may be in the best interest of the Government to consider award to other than the lowest priced Offeror or other than the highest technically rated Offeror. Reference FAR 15.101-1

2. ALL EVALUATION FACTORS, OTHER THAN COST OR PRICE, WHEN COMBINED, WILL

BE CONSIDERED OF EQUAL IMPORTANCE THAN COST OR PRICE. PAST

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION IS DESCRIBED BELOW IN THE CRITERIA SECTION.

EACH EVALUATION FACTOR, OTHER THAN COST OR PRICE WILL BE WEIGHTED

APPROXIMATELY EQUAL.

3. Evaluations are based on the information provided in response to the information requested in the below evaluation factors.

4. The Contracting Officer, with the assistance of qualified Technical Evaluators, will evaluate

Sections of each Proposal to determine the offer’s ability to accomplish the work as set forth in this solicitation. Evaluation will be based solely on the evaluation factors and criteria detailed below in Criteria Sections.

5. It is intended that a Best Value award will be made; therefore, all offerors are advised that their best terms and conditions should be presented in their initial Proposal. Offerors should not assume that they will have an opportunity to participate in discussions or be asked to submit a revised offer.

Award of a conforming Proposal may be made without discussions, if deemed to be within the best interests of the Government; however, offerors are advised that exchanges (discussions /negotiations) may occur if deemed necessary.

i. The Government will award a firm fixed-price contract to that responsible Offeror whose Proposal, conforming to the solicitation, is fair and reasonable, and has been determined to be most advantageous to the Government, considering quality, price and other factors. The Government reserves the right to accept other than the lowest priced offer. The right is also reserved to reject any and all offers.

ii. Each Offeror’s Proposal shall address the following evaluation factors.

B. Evaluation Criteria NOTE: The purpose of technical factors is to assess whether the Offeror’s Proposal response will satisfy the Government’s requirements. Please note that any Proposal narrative should tell the story (the how) the offeror intends to accomplish all the requirements of the PWS. Offeror’s Proposal response should demonstrate a full understanding of the work contained in the PWS and the associated risks. Do not simply copy and paste the PWS into your Proposal response.

1. Criteria

Factor 1: Ability to follow Solicitation instructions and Proposal Organization, appearance, & completeness.

Factor 2: Program’s Management Plan Objective (5-page max)

A Management Plan outlining the Offeror’s overall plan of how they intend to accomplish, administer and manage requirements which the Government may request under this contract as detailed in the PWS. The management plan shall explain access to and capabilities of resources available to the contractor for performance of the PWS requirements. Additionally, the plan shall document the offeror’s capability to direct the proper level of management toward the services required. Agile Project Methodology from Project Kick-off to close-out to lessons learned should be included in this plan.

Factor 3: Technical Approach (5-page max)

(i) Provide a narrative that details the technical approach that leads to successful performance of the PWS tasks. The narrative shall demonstrate proven methods and techniques, and the extent to which the offeror’s methods and approach to the performing the PWS tasks are expected to result in successful completion of the proposed tasks and technical requirements within. This should include all aspects of the scope of work.

(ii) Proposed technical solutions - Describe any technical difficulties that may be encountered in any of the PWS tasks. Provide a narrative of preventative measures or solutions to overcome these issues.

Factor 4: Technical Qualifications and Experience (5-page max)

Offeror shall provide description of Offeror’s capabilities, background and relevant information regarding stability and strengths and shall provide evidence of ability to perform the services of this PWS. Experience under this sub-factor is what work your company has performed in the past, regardless as to whether your company’s experience was as a Prime or Sub.

Note, if your company does not have Experience ranging over the entire PWS requirements, please submit what your experience your company does possess regarding specific PWS tasks.

This section should include relevant and recent Experience of the offeror’s team. Relevant experience means projects/acquisitions of similar scope and in similar or greater magnitude as described in the PWS. Where the Offeror served as the Prime Contractor is preferable.

Recent is defined as experience within the last five years through the solicitation release date.

Submit no more than 5 references. Offeror may submit less than five.

Each experience example shall include the following:

(i) Brief description of project and dollar value

(ii) Identify Prime contractor and all major subcontractors

(iii) If your company was a subcontractor, include the work performed and the quantity of work per the overall acquisition or/and each area of the acquisition.

Factor 5: Management Approach and Key personnel (10-page max)

(1) Management Team: Describe the management team organization. Describe the Management Team’s plan for managing the PWS tasks (administration). Offeror may want to include an organizational chart. The focus of this sub-factor is on the Management Team.

(2) Quality Control Team: Describe the quality control team organization. Provide the specific description of the tasks and functions of the quality control personnel. Clearly identify each member's employer. Describe the team relating to Offeror’s Quality Assurance program.

Describe the precautions taken by the management team to ensure that risk control is kept satisfactorily throughout the project. Describe the different risk control aspects to this work and why they are so important. Offeror may want to include an organizational chart.

(3) Identify key personnel to be assigned to the project, to include principal managers, and technical personnel, who will be directly responsible for the day-to-day activities. If reassignment of personnel is considered possible, provide the names and resumes (or a paragraph describing the person’s experience/credentials in place of a resume) of the alternative professionals in each assignment. Include a tentative organizational chart.

(4) The Contractor may propose cross-functional teams consisting of dedicated team members per Focus Area consistent with the requirements in the PWS.

(5) Any resumes submitted will not be considered part of the page count. However, each resume should be no longer than two pages. However, Resumes are not required for key personnel as a paragraph describing their experience/credentials will suffice.

(6) The bidder is not required to provide all proposed labor categories (LCATs) by Focus Area (FA) with a description of each specific LCAT requirement.

Factor 6: Quality Control Plan (5-page max)

Develop a brief plan specific to PWS Tasks. The plan shall reflect monitoring of work to ensure a high level of service quality. The plan shall show how quality control will be handled with the different levels of work, different sections of the PWS and any Task Orders, and types of inspection needed to meet the requirements.

Examples of plan characteristics (these characteristics are suggestions and plan are not intended to be limited to this list):

(a) The specific policy establishing schedules for the performance of quality control tasks.

(b) System of records and documentation for all Quality Control inspections

(c) Inspection methods such as planned, 100% or random, and frequency of inspections to ensure quality work.

(d) Detail what actions will be taken and by whom, from the detection of a deficiency to the corrective action.

(e) A policy for reporting quality control findings to the Contracting Officer.

(f) A procedure whereby the Contracting Officer may resolve disputes that have not received satisfactory responses from the first levels of quality control personnel.

(g) The plan for review, evaluation, and Contractor quality control of submittals, prior to

Government receipt.

Factor 7: Past Performance. (10-page max) Relevant and recent Past Performance of the offeror’s team; Relevant performance means projects of similar scope and in similar or greater magnitude as described in the PWS, preferably where the Offeror served as the Prime Contractor.

Note, if your company does not have past performance ranging over the entire PWS requirements, please submit what past performance your company does possess regarding specific PWS tasks.

Recent is defined as performance within the last five years through the solicitation release date.

Past performance under this factor is only the performance of your company, regardless as to whether your company’s performance was as a Prime or Sub. Do not use the past performance of a company that was your Sub-contractor as your past performance. Do not use the past performance of a Prime company for whom you were a Sub-contractor as your performance.

Make sure that the past performance discusses your company’s performance, not some other company’s performance.

The Past Performance may come from either federal contracts or commercial projects.

Submit no more than 5 references. Offeror may submit less than five.

Please send the Client Past Performance Questionnaire to your references and, ask them to complete and email it to me prior to the RFP due date. (Yes, you may turn the PDF into a word document and send that to your past clients.)

Each past performance reference shall include the following:

(1) Very brief description of project and dollar value

(2) Identify Prime contractor and all major subcontractors

(3) Project completion time

NOTE: The offeror may include client or third-party documentation as part of their Proposal demonstrating how well they performed on relevant projects. Submit awards, customer letters of commendation, or customer performance evaluations. The offeror must submit this information for past performance evaluation or affirmatively state that it possesses no relevant past performance.

NOTE: The Government will evaluate the offerors past performance based upon the project information submitted. Offerors lacking relevant past performance history will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably in past performance. However, the Proposal of an offeror with no relevant past performance history, while rated “No Rating” in past performance, may not represent the most advantageous Proposal to the Government.

NOTE: The Government may also utilize the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Dun and Bradstreet, Excluded Parties List System, Central Contractor Registration, Online Representations and Certifications Application, and other publicly accessible databases.

Factor 8: Price – Proposal:

Basis of Evaluation:

The Government will evaluate pricing proposals for award purposes by adding the Vendor’s total contract line item number (CLIN) prices for the base year requirement with the total CLIN prices for all option periods. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices and/or price breakdown schedule prices are significantly unbalanced.

Price analysis will be performed by one or more of the following techniques to ensure a fair and reasonable price:

(i) Comparison of a proposed Vendor’s total and CLIN pricing, taking into consideration the breakdown per each CLIN with other Vendor proposed total and CLIN pricing. For IDIQ pricing guidance on CLIN structure, please read the PWS.

(ii) Comparison of proposed vendor prices with the IGCE.

(iii) Comparison of proposed vendor prices with available historical information.

(iv) Comparison of proposed vendor prices with market survey results.

Option periods will be considered to have been evaluated at the time the proposal pricing is evaluated.

Pricing Section must include four sub-sections:

There are no page limits for this section, nor a specified format, nor any specific pricing list that a Vendor must use. LCAT specific rates are not required as part of the price submission.

This will not be a labor-hour contract.

1. Sub-section one:

The offeror shall provide a total price, (in MS Excel) which includes the base year and all option years along with the following price breakdown:

i. per each CLIN & SubCLIN.

ii. per base and each option period.

2. Sub-section two:

The following supporting information will be utilized for analysis purposes; however, it will not be used to evaluate pricing among Vendors.

i. Vendor is to submit a Deliverables-Schedule Pricing chart for each CLIN & SubCLIN deliverable in correlation to Vendor’s milestone schedule, to reflect anticipated accepted deliverables for each anticipated invoiced time-period.

a. A brief Deliverables-Schedule Pricing Example is provided as an attachment.

A Deliverable breakdown is required to assist in determining that a Vendor has priced all individual PWS areas and that each item is priced reasonably, etc and will be utilized for the Awardee Vendor’s future invoicing submissions. Future invoice payments will be dependent on the Vendor’s Deliverables-Schedule Pricing. However, there is not a precise deliverable breakdown format required.

After award of the IDIQ, an updated Deliverables-Schedule Pricing Breakdown may be required by the CO before Task Order issuance.

3. Sub-section three:

Explanation narrative. Please feel free to include any information relevant.

Vendor is not required to include information on i, ii, iii, or iv below. See following comments to clarify as to what these elements are referencing or why Vendor may want to include a statement.

i. Basis of price. This is to assist the Vendor & USDA by documenting any relevant sources that Vendor may be relying on for pricing.

ii. Clarifications and Assumptions.

iii. Exclusions. Vendor may state that pricing does not include A,B,C … anything that

Vendor does not want USDA to infer that is in Vendor pricing that customarily may be included in such services.

iv. Rationale for rates used, etc.… Example: Suppose a vendor has an incredibly low price on a particular service area, here is where Vendor could explain the extremely lower-than-market pricing, allowing USDA to be aware of Vendor’s intention.

4. Sub-section four:

For CLIN 0004, FFP – FA4: Legacy System Enhancement or Modernization Planning - The Contractor shall provide dependent legacy agile development services for the Government in accordance with the PWS FA4, Sprint Iteration estimated length of 3 weeks, with estimated story points of 150. Therefore, please provide a narrative demonstrating two project examples that would fit within those parameters.

RATING SYSTEM:

The Government will assess its level of confidence that the offering contractor will successfully perform all requirements in regard to the criteria factors above.

Rating System Chart for evaluation factors:

High Confidence The Government has high confidence that the Offeror understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, and will be successful in performing the contract with little or no Government intervention.

Satisfactory Confidence The Government has satisfactory confidence that the Offeror understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, and will be successful in performing the contract with some Government intervention.

Low Confidence The Government has low confidence that the Offeror understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, or will be successful in performing the contract even with Government intervention.

Unknown Confidence Relates only to Past Performance factor. No recent/relevant performance record is available, or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonable assigned.