Attch_6_-_Evaluation_Criteria.pdf

U.S. Department of the Interior Solicitation No. 140D0418R0001

Source Selection Information – FAR 2.101 and 3.104

Addendum to Federal Acquisition Regulation Clause 52.212-2 Evaluation – Commercial Items (Oct 2014)

October 5, 2017

Table of Contents 1 Evaluation Plan

1.1 Basis of Award

1.1.1 Proposal Volumes and Evaluation Factors

1.2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

1.3 Rejection of Unrealistic Offers

2 Evaluation Methodology for Factors 1 through 3

2.1 Evaluation Methodology for Factors 1 and 2

3 Evaluation Factors

3.1 Non-Price Factors

3.1.1 Factor 1: Management and Technical Solution

3.1.1.1 Section 1, Chapter 2: Management and Technical Solution

3.1.2 Factor 2: Personnel Requirements

3.1.2.1 Key Personnel

3.1.2.2 Senior Level Support

3.1.2.3 Functional Personnel

3.1.2.4 Technical Personnel

3.1.3 Evaluation Methodology for Factor 2

3.1.4 Factor 3: Relevant Past and Present Performance

3.1.4.1 Relevant Past and Present Performance

3.1.4.2 Unknown Past and Present Performance

3.1.4.3 Past and Present Performance Problems

3.1.5 Relevant Past and Present Performance

3.2 Cost/Price Factor

3.2.1 Factor 4: Cost/Price

4 Responsibility Determination

5 Competitive Range

Solicitation No. 140D0418R0001 – FBMS Support Services ID/IQ

Evaluation Criteria

Source Selection Information – FAR 2.101 and 3.104

1 Evaluation Plan

1.1 Basis of Award

The tradeoff process will be used to obtain the best value for the Government to fulfill this requirement.

The Government will select the best value offer, based upon an integrated assessment of both price and non-price factors to include Technical qualifications, Relevant Past and Present Performance, and Cost/Price. The evaluation will include an assessment of all stated terms, conditions, and all other information required in this solicitation, and a determination that the successful Offeror is deemed responsible. The Government will award a single Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) Contract and initial Task Orders to the Offeror proposing the combination of factors which offers the best value to the Government.

Factors 1 and 2 are significantly more important than Factors 3 and 4. Factors 3 & 4 are equally important. All evaluation factors, other than cost (Factors 1, 2 and 3), when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price (Factor 4). Award will be made on a Best Value Full Trade-off basis and the source selection will be conducted in accordance with FAR Subpart 15.3. The award will be based on the best overall proposal determined to be the most beneficial to the Government with the appropriate consideration given to the evaluation factors. As a basis for award, trade-offs between price and non-price factors are permitted. Therefore, the Government reserves the right to award to other than the lowest proposed price. However, the degree of importance of a factor in determining award could become greater depending upon the equality of the proposals evaluated in the non-cost factors.

The greater the equality of proposals within the non-cost factors, the more important price becomes in selecting the best value to the Government. Each evaluation factor will be evaluated based on its strength, weakness, deficiency, and risk factor.

Factor 1: Management and Technical Solution Factor 2: Personnel Requirements Factor 3: Relevant Past and Present Performance Factor 4: Cost/Price

Negotiations are anticipated, but the government reserves the right not to hold discussions

The evaluation will consider the proposals based on the following:

• FBMS Support Services ID/IQ Performance Work Statement (PWS)

• Business Integration Office (BIO) Support Services Task Order (PWS)

• National Park Service (NPS) FBMS Support Services Task Order (PWS)

• Acquisition Services Directorate (AQD) FBMS Support Services Task Order (PWS)

1.1.1 Proposal Volumes and Evaluation Factors

The proposals will be evaluated utilizing information provided in the proposal volumes listed below and against the following evaluation factors:

Proposal Volumes:

Volume 1: Factor 1 -Management and Technical Solution

Volume 2: Factor 2 - Personnel Requirements Volume 3: Factor 3 - Relevant Past and Present Performance Volume 4: Factor 4 - Cost/Price

The evaluation will consider the IDIQ contract proposals and the proposals for the three (3) initial task orders. However, as specified below, certain parts of the proposal will not be evaluated against every non-price evaluation factor at the task order level. All parts of the proposal will be evaluated at the Master IDIQ level.

• IDIQ Master Contract: The IDIQ Master contract will be evaluated utilizing information provided in the following proposal volumes and evaluation factors:

Proposal Volume/Evaluation Factor:

Volume 1: Factor 1 – Management and Technical Solution Volume 2: Factor 2 – Personnel Requirements Volume 3: Factor 3 – Relevant Past and Present Performance Volume 4: Factor 4 – Cost/Price

• BIO Support Services Task Order: The BIO Task Order will be evaluated utilizing information provided in the following proposal volumes and evaluation factors:

Proposal Volume/Evaluation Factor:

Volume 1: Factor 1 – Management and Technical Solution Volume 2: Factor 2 – Personnel Requirements

• NPS Support Services Task Order: The NPS Task Order will be evaluated utilizing information provided in the following proposal volumes and evaluation factors:

• AQD Support ServicesTask Order: The AQD Support Task Order will be evaluated utilizing information provided in the following proposal volumes and evaluation factors:

1.2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

It is the Government’s intention to award a single Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) Contract as a result of this solicitation. The Government also intends to award initial Task Orders for the Business Integration Office (BIO), Acquisition Services Directorate (AQD), and National Park Service (NPS) as a result of this solicitation. The Government reserves the right to not award a Contract or Task Orders as a result of this solicitation, depending upon the quality of the proposal(s) submitted or other unforeseen reasons.

1.3 Rejection of Unrealistic Offers

Unrealistically high or low proposed prices can be grounds for eliminating a proposal from the competition. Such a proposal can be viewed as indicative of lack of understanding of the Government’s desired objective. Cost realism means that the costs in an Offeror’s proposal are realistic for the work to be performed; reflect a clear understanding of the requirements; and are consistent with the various elements of the Offeror’s technical proposal.

The Government can reject any offeror that is determined to be unrealistic of program commitments, including terms and conditions, and evaluation criteria or is unrealistically high or low in cost, such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program.

In addition, Offerors are cautioned against submitting a materially unbalanced offer. Offers that are determined to be materially unbalanced can be rejected. The Government will analyze offers to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to prices or separately priced line items. An offer is mathematically unbalanced if it is based on prices which are significantly less than the cost for some contract line items and significantly overstated in relation to cost for others. An offer is materially and mathematically unbalanced, if:

a. There is a reasonable doubt that the offer would result in the lowest overall cost to the Government, even though it is the lowest evaluated offer; or

b. The offer is so grossly unbalanced that its acceptance would be tantamount to allowing an advance payment.

2 Evaluation Methodology for Factors 1 through 3

2.1 Evaluation Methodology for Factors 1 and 2

The Management and Technical Solution and Personnel Requirements evaluation provides an assessment of the Offeror’s capability to meet or exceed the Government’s requirements. The evaluation will focus on the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies of the Offeror's proposal.

Overall, the assessment criteria includes adequacy of approach; feasibility of approach;

completeness; and understanding of the requirement. The following will be evaluated for an overall assessment of the Management and Technical Solution and Personnel Requirements.

3 Evaluation Factors Proposals will be evaluated based upon the factors listed below.

3.1 Non-Price Factors

3.1.1 Factor 1: Management and Technical Solution

3.1.1.1 Section 1, Chapter 2: Management and Technical Solution A review of the Management and Technical Solution will consist of a determination and analysis of strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses and deficiencies. Evaluation elements will include:

a. Detailed rationale and contributing factors that attributed to the contractor’s strategic approach entering, and remaining, in the field of Federal Government financial service and business management support for SAP solutions.

b. Implementation and feasibility of execution of the contractor’s management approach in addressing employee turnaround and management plan to expeditiously backfill departing employees assigned to this requirement.

c. Demonstration of a thorough understanding of the support work described in the PWSs, including an in depth approach to managing virtual teams located in different geographic locations. The offeror shows a clear understanding of the work to be performed as outlined in the PWS for the base IDIQ and the individual Task Orders, to include, providing production support and development services; utilizing Agile methodology practices in a matrixed organization, including production support, break in fix changes, creation of new objects, system enhancements and supporting long term projects that aligns with the work environment; providing technical support services that aligns with the required support work; providing hosting support services that aligns with the work environment; and providing project management services.

d. Detailed contract management approach that aligns with requirements for all required support services that demonstrates an acceptable approach to deliverable reporting and proposes realistic performance measures that align with support work described in the PWSs.

e. Detailed corporate management structure, as well as the structure of the proposed team and the relationship between these organizations and all subcontractors proposed to perform major or critical aspects of this requirement (as defined by the Offeror), which shall be listed in the proposal.

Consideration will be given to the following:

1. Demonstration of enterprise practices, processes, experience, and understanding of the challenges of achieving multiple-application environments; innovative approaches; and lessons learned.

3.1.1.2 Section 1, Chapter 3: Labor Category Descriptions

The government will evaluate the offerors proposed labor categories to determine their interchangability and function in relation to the government proposed labor categories. Any newly added labor categories shall be considered by the government for their necessity. In the event that any of the newly proposed labor categories are determined unnecessary the government will reject them without providing a favorable or unfavorable evaluation to the offeror.

3.1.1.3 Section 1, Chapter 4: Small Business Participation Plan All offerors, large and small businesses, shall be evaluated on the proposed participation of small businesses in the performance of the acquisition (as a small business prime offeror or a small business subcontractor) relative to the objectives and goals established. The government will evaluate:

a. The extent to which small business firms are specifically identified in proposals

b. The complexity and variety of work proposed small business firms are proposed to perform in completion of this contract;

c. The extent past performance is in compliance with FAR clause 52.219-8 “Utilization of

Small Business Concerns” and maximizing opportunities for Small Business Subcontractors.;

d. The extent to which the offeror meets or exceeds the small business goals identified in section 3.1.1.4.b.1 of the Instructions to Offerors in terms of the value of the total acquisition (total contract value) (i.e., binding commitments will become enforceable/contractual requirements);

e. Successful history of positively teaming with other companies and to work as a team without major issues that couldn’t be resolved between the parties; teaming history and relationships with other companies; and staffing risk mitigation. The extent to which the offeror provides detailed explanations/documentation supporting the proposed quantitative participation.

f. The extent to which offerors demonstrate substantive tocommitment to small businesses, such as letters of commitment,joint venture or other teaming arrangement.

g. The Government will evaluate the proposal to determine which offeror proposes the best value in terms of Small Business Participation. The work to be performed directly by a small business prime offeror will also be evaluated as Small Business Participation.

The Small Business Participation Commitment Document will become part of the resultant contract.

3.1.1.4 Section 2: Transition Plan

A review of the Transition Plan will consist of a determination and analysis of strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies. Evaluation elements will include:

a. Demonstration of a sound, comprehensive, and reasonable approach to the transition from the current support contract to the awardee. This includes a comprehensive, resource-loaded project plan, along with related assumptions.

b. Demonstration of a realistic approach to working with the current Contractors to facilitate the transition of each of the Task Order services from the current Contractors with minimal disruption to the provided services.

c. Demonstration of a comprehensive listing of transition risks, their likely impacts on affected personnel, and practical mitigation measures to reduce negative impact.

d. Evaluation of the offerors transition plan for applicability and feasibility of execution. The transition plan shall include the locations identified for the Task Orders. The transition plan is composed of the transition approach, transition schedule, transition staffing plan, transitional organizational chart and transition checklist.

3.1.2 Factor 2: Personnel Requirements

The offerors proposal shall address the Personnel Requirements at the Base and Task Order level

3.1.2.1 Key Personnel

Evaluation elements will include:

a. Demonstration of the extent to which proposed key personnel meet or exceed the required work experience for each position, as stated in each Task Order Performance Work Statement (PWS) requirements.

b. Demonstration of the extent to which the proposed key personnel meet or exceed the training and/or education requirements required for each key position.

c. Demonstration that all key personnel are available for the PWSs

3.1.2.2 Senior Level Support

. Evaluation elements will include:

a. Demonstration of the extent to which proposed senior level support personnel meet or exceed the required work experience for each position, as stated in the PWSs.

b. Demonstration of the extent to which the proposed key personnel meet or exceed the training and/or education requirements required for each key position.

c. Demonstration that all senior level support personnel are available for the PWSs

3.1.2.3 Functional Personnel

. Evaluation elements will include:

a. Demonstration of the extent to which proposed functional personnel meet or exceed the required work experience needed in this area, as documented in the PWSs. This includes SAP module functional experts and training staff.

b. Demonstration of the extent to which functional personnel meet or exceed the required training and education for the position(s) required to support the PWSs.

3.1.2.4 Technical Personnel

Evaluation elements will include:

a. Demonstration of the extent to which proposed technical personnel meet or exceed the required work experience needed in this area, as documented in the PWSs. This includes Functional and System Administrators, Developers, Data Modelers, Report Analysts, Application Security and Batch Processing Specialists.

b. Demonstration of the extent to which proposed technical personnel meet or exceed the required training and education for the position(s) required to support the PWSs.

Factor 1 Management and Technical Solutions and Factor 2 Personnel Requirements will be rated based on the definitions set forth below. The adjectival rating table focuses on the proposals strengths, deficiencies, weaknesses, risks and uncertainties.

TECHNICAL RATINGS

Rating Definition Exceptional The proposal far exceeds stated requirements, as reflected through an innovative, comprehensive, outstanding approach. The response is complete in terms of the basic content and level of information the Government seeks for evaluation. There is a high probability of success and minimal risk that this Offeror would fail to meet the quantity, quality, and schedule requirements. No weaknesses or significant weaknesses were identified.

Very Good

The proposal exceeds stated requirements, as reflected through an innovative, comprehensive, and/or outstanding approach. The response is complete in terms of the basic content and level of information the Government seeks for evaluation. There is a high probability of success and minimal risk that this Offeror would fail to meet the quantity, quality, and schedule requirements. Minor weaknesses, if any, need not be corrected to make award.

Satisfactory The proposal meets the stated requirements. The response is considered complete in terms of the basic content and level of information the Government seeks for evaluation. There is a reasonable probability of success and little risk that this Offeror would fail to meet the quantity, quality, and schedule requirements. Minor weaknesses, if any, are offset by strengths and may not need to be corrected to make award.

Marginal The proposal does not clearly meet the requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses or significant weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unsatisfactory The proposal fails to meet the stated requirements. The response is considered deficient in terms of basic content and level of information the Government seeks for evaluation. The degree of risk and contractual performance uncertainty is so high that an award cannot be made against the proposal. Any proposal receiving this rating will not be further evaluated.

3.1.3 Evaluation Methodology for Factor 2

The Government will evaluate Factor 2, Personnel Requirements by utilizing the adjectival ratings of Satisfactory and Unsatisfactory only.

For the offeror to obtain a rating of Satisfactory each resume must meet all the position criteria (see attachment 1.G) for the Key and Senior personnel without any deviation and the proposal shall include a resume for each Key and Senior position. In the event, that a single resume for a Key or Senior position does not meet the position criteria or if a single resume is omitted from the proposal the offeror shall receive a rating of Unsatisfactory for all Key and Senior personnel.

Furthermore, for the offeror to obtain a rating of Satisfactory, at least 51% of resumes must meet the position criteria for the Technical and Functional personnel and the proposal shall include a resume for each Technical and Functional position. In the event, that the offeror’s proposed resumes do not meet the position criteria and the contractor has omitted resumes for at least 51% of technical and functional positions, the offeror shall receive a rating of unsatisfactory.

The offeror must receive a rating of Satisfactory for the Key and Senior personnel and for the Technical and Functional personnel. A proposal that does not receive a Satisfactory for all positions shall receive a rating of Unsatisfactory for Factor 2.

3.1.4 Factor 3: Relevant Past and Present Performance

3.1.4.1 Relevant Past and Present Performance

Relevant past and present performance will be evaluated as follows:

• Offeror provides references for the prime Contractor and subcontractor/teaming partners that are similar in size, scope and complexity to the PWS requirements.

• Past and Present Performance references are recent/relevant and provide evidence of quality, timeliness, cost control, positive business relations, and effective and efficient management.

• Other past performance information obtained through other sources (e.g., PPIRS, etc.)

demonstrates consistently high quality of service provided on other similar contracts.

3.1.4.2 Unknown Past and Present Performance

In some circumstances Past and Present Performance may receive an unknown rating. In the event that an Offeror does not have a record of relevant past or present performance or information on past or present performance is not available, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably but will instead receive a neutral rating.

3.1.4.3 Past and Present Performance Problems

Where relevant performance records indicate performance problems, the Government will consider the number and severity of the problems and the appropriateness and effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised). The Government may review more recent contracts or performance evaluations to ensure corrective actions have been implemented and to evaluate their effectiveness. The Offeror is required to clearly demonstrate management actions employed in overcoming problems and the effects of those actions, in terms of improvements achieved or problems rectified.

Submittal of quality performance indicators or other management indicators that clearly support that an Offeror has overcome past problems is required.

3.1.5 Relevant Past and Present Performance

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s past and present performance to ascertain, based off the offerors performance history, the probability of successfully performing the requirements of the solicitation.

The government will consider each offerors demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying services that meet the requirements of this solicitation. There are two aspects to past performance evaluation: Relevancy and Recency. Relevant is defined as being similar in scope, complexity, and magnitude to the work required by the PWSs. Recent is defined as work performed within the last five (5) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past Performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

A relevancy determinationof the Offeror’s (including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s) past performance will be made. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the offeror, tearming partner or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The past performance information provided in the proposal and obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance. Offerors without a record of relevant past performance will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and will receive an "Unknown/Neutral" confidence-rating table below..

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings Rating Definition Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well Offerors have performed on referenced contracts. The past performance evaluation performed in support of a current source selection does not establish, create or change the existing record and history of the Offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the Offeror performed those past contracts. Requirements for considering history of small business utilization are outlined at FAR 15.304(c)(3)(ii). The Past Performance Evaluation Team will review this past performance information and determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to performance confidence assessment.

Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Definition Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

3.2 Cost/Price Factor

3.2.1 Factor 4: Cost/Price

The Cost/Price Volume will be evaluated separately from the Management and Technical Solution Volume, Personnel Requirements Volume and Relevant Past and Present Performance Volume. Pricing should NOT be present or referenced in other volume, chapter, section, or document of an offerors proposal other than the Pricing Volume. The Offeror is expected to propose competitive, reasonable, and realistic prices for the ID/IQ contract labor rates and realistic cost and prices for the three (3) initial Task Orders in accordance with all guidance provided in FAR 52.212-1 Instruction to Offerors. An evaluation of the Cost/Price Volume will be made to determine if it is both realistic and reasonable for the work to be performed, reflects a clear understanding of the requirements, and is consistent with the Management and Technical Solution Volume and the Personnel Requirements Volume. In evaluating Cost/Price, the ID/IQ labor rates and the individual price for the three (3) initial Task Orders will be evaluated.

Offerors shall not submit a price for the potential six month extension of services period. The Government may choose to exercise the Extension of Services (FAR Clause 52.217-8) at the end of any performance period by utilizing the rates of that performance period. No Adjectival Ratings shall be used to evaluate price. Price will not be scored or rated. The best value offer will be determined through tradeoff analysis, the Government is not bound to award to the lowest priced offeror.

4 Responsibility Determination No award shall be made unless the Contracting Officer makes an affirmative determination of responsibility in accordance with FAR Part 9.1. A prospective Contractor must affirmatively demonstrate its responsibility, including, the responsibility of its proposed subcontractors.

5 Competitive Range In accordance with FAR 15.306(c), after evaluating all proposals, if it has been determined to be in the best interest of the Government to establish a competitive range, the Contracting Officer reserves the right to limit the competitive range for purposes of efficiency. 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 technical proposals (10 U.S.C. 2305(b)(4) and 41 U.S.C.

253b(d)). The competitive range will be comprised of the most highly rated proposals, based on the ratings of each proposal against all evaluation criteria. The Contracting Officer will promptly notify Offerors of any decision to exclude them from the competitive range.

3.1.5 Relevant Past and Present Performance