15 Request for Quote.pdf

REQUEST FOR QUOTATION

(THIS IS NOT AN ORDER)

THIS RFQ IS IS NOT A SMALL BUSINESS SET-ASIDE

15. DATE OF QUOTATION

16. SIGNER

a. NAME (Type or print)

c. TITLE (Type or print)

b. TELEPHONE

AREA CODE

NUMBER

STANDARD FORM 18 (REV. 6-95)

Prescribed by GSA-FAR (48 CFR) 53.215-1(a)

AUTHORIZED FOR LOCAL REPRODUCTION

Previous edition not usable

8. TO:

b. COMPANYa. NAME

c. STREET ADDRESS

d. CITY e. STATE f. ZIP CODE

9. DESTINATION

a. NAME OF CONSIGNEE

b. STREET ADDRESS

c. CITY

d. STATE e. ZIP CODE

7. DELIVERY

FOB DESTINATION

OTHER

(See Schedule)

10. PLEASE FURNISH QUOTATIONS TO THE

ISSUING OFFICE IN BLOCK 5a ON OR BEFORE CLOSE OF BUSINESS (Date)

IMPORTANT: This is a request for information and quotations furnished are not offers. If you are unable to quote, please so indicate on this form and return it to the address in Block 5a. This request does not commit the Government to pay any costs incurred in the preparation of the submission of this quotation or to contract for supplies or service. Supplies are of domestic origin unless otherwise indicated by quoter. Any representations and/or certifications attached to this Request for Quotation must be completed by the quoter.

11. SCHEDULE (Include applicable Federal, State and local taxes)

ITEM NO.

(a)

SUPPLIES/ SERVICES

(b)

QUANTITY

(c)

UNIT

(d)

UNIT PRICE

(e)

AMOUNT

(f)

12. DISCOUNT FOR PROMPT PAYMENT

a. 10 CALENDAR DAYS (%) b. 20 CALENDAR DAYS (%) c. 30 CALENDAR DAYS (%) d. CALENDAR DAYS

NUMBER PERCENTAGE

NOTE: Additional provisions and representations are are not attached.

13. NAME AND ADDRESS OF QUOTER

a. NAME OF QUOTER

b. STREET ADDRESS

c. COUNTY

d. CITY e. STATE f. ZIP CODE

14. SIGNATURE OF PERSON AUTHORIZED TO

SIGN QUOTATION

PAGE OF PAGES

2. DATE ISSUED 4. CERT. FOR NAT. DEF.

UNDER BDSA REG. 2

AND/OR DMS REG. 1

RATING

5a. ISSUED BY 6. DELIVER BY (Date)

5b. FOR INFORMATION CALL (NO COLLECT CALLS)

NAME TELEPHONE NUMBER

AREA CODE NUMBER

01/27/2022

3. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQUEST NO.

5000130266

Procurement -Operations Branch Southern Reg 4050 Alpha Rd Farmers Branch, TX 75244-4201 Attn: Hassan Villalba Tel: +1 469-801-0778 Email: hassan.a.villalba@irs.gov

1. REQUEST NO.

205AE9-22-P-00085 01/27/2022

See Attached Schedule(s)

This is a Small Bussiness set-aside. Quotes are due 02/10/2022 no later than 12:00 PM (CST). Please submit your quote to Contract Officer Hassan Villalba at hassan.a.villalba@irs.gov. Must have active SAM registration. Also, please see fill out all appropriate clauses and provisions highlighted in the solicitation.

X

Line Item Qty Description Price

00001 1 web-based subscription database – Base Year 03/28/2022 – 03/27/2023

PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE PRIORITY ACCESS to Royalty Database

C.1. INTRODUCTION/OVERVIEW

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Large Business and International’s (LB&I) mission includes auditing the pricing of Taxpayer’s Intellectual Property (IP) transactions and Service arrangements with related entities. A critical step in LBI’s analysis in determining an arm’s length price is the identification of comparable IP and service transactions in the marketplace.

LB&I is responsible for providing its employees with the data and tools that will allow them to replicate and independently determine comparable arm’s length royalty rates. To accomplish this, LB&I requires a database with an effective search engine, with no annual limit on downloads of IP and Service Agreements.

C.2. BACKGROUND

The IRS requires the purchase of a royalty database subscription capable of meeting all the Government’s requirements for a historical repository of IP and Service transactions. The database will be used by a select group of LB&I and Appeals transfer pricing analysts.

The vendor will provide access to all IP and Service transaction data, the use of the related software, and training for the database in accordance with the specifications in the resultant contract.

C.3. DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES

The IP database vendor (vendor) will provide:

1) A database of IP and Service transactions. At a minimum, the database should contain all publicly available IP transactions and Service Agreements gathered from sources including company filings, regulatory filings, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests and FOIA-like requests.

2) A historical database of IP transactions and Service agreements. The database must provide transactions dating back to 2000 or earlier.

3) The database must provide a summary of transaction terms compiled by experienced analysts. At a minimum, the summary must provide a transaction synopsis; effective time period; licensor; licensee; whether the parties to the agreement are related entities; agreement type; industry;

geographic territory; degree of exclusivity; and royalty rates/service fee detail, including base used for the calculation. The transaction summary must also identify all amendments to the agreement with full detail.

4) The database must provide detailed definitions for all filters employed in the database.

5) The database should provide analytical tools used in standard transfer pricing analyses. Ideally, the database should provide a numerical summary of the search results, including an interquartile range based on IRC Section 482 definitions.

6) A primary consideration is the effectiveness of the search engine that would enable IRS tax practitioners to meet LB&I’s regulatory needs (i.e., the arm’s length standard). The IRS transfer pricing analyst must be able to search on key characteristics of the transaction under examination to derive an appropriate pool of potential comparable transactions. The interface should be user-friendly and laid out in an intuitive manner. If needed, the IRS will assemble a panel of transfer pricing analysts to demo the database products to determine the efficacy of the product.

7) The database must have an efficient search engine that can handle multiple users and search simultaneously. The IRS anticipates that the number of users will be around 400.

8) The IRS must be able to export the documents identified in the search, as well as the any analytic information related to the search results.

9) The IRS will have unlimited access to database transactions, with no annual cap on downloads of transaction agreements.

10) The IRS will have unlimited access to the database functionality,

11) The IRS requires timely access to experienced analysts and customer support. The vendor support must be provided by analysts with expertise in the categorization of transaction terms and support must be provided within 48 hours.

12) The vendor must provide training of IRS employees upon request. The vendor will work with the IRS to structure the training provided.

C.4. REQUIRED DATA

The vendor shall provide full access to the IP database to each user, including all analytical tools available. The vendor will also allow users to easily export all relevant information, save agreement sets, and search steps for future use.

PERFORMANCE STANDARD – REQUIRED DATA

The vendor shall provide access to the data specified above on a 24 hour-7 day basis. The data shall be updated with the same frequency as available to normal commercial customers.

C.5. INFORMATION ACCESS

The information shall be available to the users by means of a high-speed internet website. The website shall be useable via IDs and passwords. Access will be available to IRS employees 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

PERFORMANCE STANDARD – INFORMATION ACCESS

Requested information is provided to authorized IRS users as follows:

1. Compatible with Windows 10 and can link and export data to Microsoft Office 365 version of Microsoft Excel, Access, and Word. In addition to the preceding operating system and applications, the Contractor shall:

a) Maintain compatibility with the latest version of the Microsoft Operating System and Excel and Word applications,

b) Comply with Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and

c) Online access using high-speed network and modem connections, as well as through the IRS Intranet using a Web Browser on http port 80 only.

2. Website access is by use of ID and password.

3. Password changes are restricted to the IRS point of contact.

C.6. HELP/SUPPORT IN USE OF DATABASE

The vendor will:

1. Provide unlimited telephone Help Desk/Support to users of the database. The support shall include a means for individual users to contact the contractor, during normal business hours, 9 AM to 6 PM EST, to secure assistance in the use of the product, including but not limited to questions dealing with information on the data base, use of the software attached to the database in terms of searching the database, compiling information, outputting information, generating reports etc., from analysts with expertise in the categorization of transaction terms and support must be provided within 48 hours.

2. Provide this help/support beginning on Period of Performance start date.

PERFORMANCE STANDARD – HELP/SUPPORT IN USE OF DATABASE

Help/Support in the use of database will:

1. Help/Support will be available to users from the beginning on the contract’s award date.

2. Assist users in questions dealing with specifics of the data, accessing the data, use of any attached software, use of report templates and downloading of data during normal business hours for the length of the contract.

C.7. DATABASE TRAINING UPON REQUEST

The contractor:

1. Must provide training of IRS employees upon request. The vendor will work with the IRS Point-of-Contact to structure the requested training.

2. Provide any training as soon after the Period of Performance start date as requested.

3. Training is on demand with no limits. The vendor will work with the IRS to tailor the training to meet the needs of the IRS. The vendor will provide trainers with expertise in search methodology to locate comparable contracts to the tax issue under examination.

PERFORMANCE STANDARD – DATABASE TRAINING UPON REQUEST

Training for the use of database will:

1. Be provided initially to make the database accessible to users.

C.8. AUTHORIZED USERS

Authorized users under this contract are select transfer pricing practitioners of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The IRS Point-of-Contact is Maureen Burns Maureen.A.Burns@irs.gov.

The IRS Contracting Officer’s Representative, COR, is Carol Hyldahl Carol.A.Hyldahl@irs.gov, and the Alternate COR, is Mariko Killion, Mariko.Killion @irs.gov.

C.9. PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE

The estimated period of performance for services under this contract requirement will be:

Base Year Period: March 28, 2022 to March 27, 2023

The vendor will be ready to commence work under the contract after receipt of contract award of the Base Year Period.

mailto:Maureen.A.Burns@irs.gov mailto:Carol.A.Hyldahl@irs.gov

C.10 DELIVERABLE TABLE

C.4 Required Data & Tools - Online Deliverable Due Date Full access to IP database, including all analytical tools

Allow users to export all relevant data, save search sets, and search steps for future use

Requested reports (i.e., usage) from Technical Point of Contact

Upon contract award and continuously through each contract year

Upon contract award and continuously through each contract year

Upon contract award and continuously through each contract year as requested

C.5 Information Access Deliverable Due Date Database and tools provided via a high-speed internet website 24 hours a day, seven days a week

Maintains compatibility with the latest versions of Microsoft Operating System and Application

Complies with Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973

Upon contract award and continuously through each contract year

Upon contract award and continuously through each contract year

Upon contract award and continuously through each contract year

C.6 Help/Support for Database Usage Deliverable Due Date Unlimited telephone Help Desk/Support to the 400 users

Requested individualized help/support for any of the 400 users

Upon contract award and continuously through each contract year; from 9:00 to 6:00 EST during the business work week

Upon contract award and continuously through each contract year; within 48 hours or 2 business days from 9:00 to 6:00 EST

C.7 Database Training Deliverable Due Date Beginning training sessions for 400 users

Advanced training sessions for 400 users

Customized training sessions for individual users with specific technical issues

As required upon request

C.11. QUALITY ASSURANCE

The IRS’ Point-of-Contact will monitor the performance of the contractor through direct observation of the contractor’s performance. The Government will assess the performance of the contractor in accordance with the performance standards set forth in this Performance Work Statement. Please see the Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan.

C.12. DELIVERY

Delivery of web-based database subscription access requested on the same day of the period of performance commencement date in Section C.8 of the awarded contract.

C.13. INVOICES

Contract Number must be on all future invoices. Invoices must be submitted annually in advance to the Invoice Processing Platform (IPP) at www.ipp.gov.

Duplicate Copy of electronic Invoices will be delivered to:

Carol Hyldahl

CONTRACTING OFFICER REPRESENTATIVE (COR)

Internal Revenue Service Telephone: (469) 801-0347 Carol.A.Hyldahl@irs.gov

C.14. CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION INFORMATION

CAROL HYLDAHL, CONTRACTING OFFICER REPRESENTATIVE (COR)

Ph: 469-801-0347 Email: Carol.A.Hyldahl@irs.gov

C.15. GOVERNMENT FURNISHED PROPERTY

N/A. There will be no Government furnished property provided under this contract requirement.

C.16. SECURITY REQUIREMENTS

N/A.

C17. SECTION 508

Section 508 is relevant for this contract. While Section 508 is not part of the Technical Evaluation, Contractors need to prove 508 compliance in order for their offers to be considered.

Section 508 clauses are included in the Clauses section below.

http://www.ipp.gov/

TECHNICAL EVALUATION PLAN

FOR

Royalty Database

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE

LARGE BUSINESS & INTERNATIONAL

(LB&I)

Request for Quote Number 5000130266

TECHNICAL EVALUATION CRITERIA

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, LB&I

Royalty Database

SHOPPING CART: 5000130266

1. Technical Services (70%)

2. Pricing (30%)

1. PURPOSE

The purpose of this Technical Evaluation Plan (TEP) is to establish the procedures and factors that will be applied to proposals received under the Request for Quote (RFQ) No.

5000130266 Royalty Database subscription.

2. CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST AND NON-DISCLOSURE

The documents listed below must be signed and returned to the Contracting Officer prior to the panel member being given access to the proposals

a. Conflict of Interest – Any person(s) serving on the Technical Evaluation Committee (TEC) must have signed and returned to the Contracting Officer a Conflict-of-Interest Statement in Attachment 1. Any committee member who has or develops a conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict of interest, shall immediately bring such conflict or appearance of a conflict to the attention of the Contracting Officer. Such conflict of interest may be in the form of financial interest of the committee member or member of his/her immediate family in one of the firms whose proposal is being evaluated. Also, any panel member who has knowledge of or suspects that another panel member may have such conflict of interest shall immediately report same to the Contracting Officer.

Anyone having such a conflict will be immediately replaced on the applicable committee.

b. Non-Disclosure – Any person(s) serving on this TEC must have signed and returned to the Contracting Officer a Non-Disclosure Agreement in Attachment 1.

c. FAR 3.104 – Procurement Integrity – Any person serving on this TEC must have read and be familiar with the Procurement Integrity requirements contained in FAR 3.104 which may be read on the internet at http://farsite.hill.af.mil/vffara.htm

3. RESPONSIBILITIES

a. Contracting Officer – For this acquisition, the Contracting Officer is Hassan Villalba of the Office of Business Solutions Acquisition, Deputy Field Operations, Operations Branch Southern Branch, Midstates Section (OS:OCPO:BSA:FO:S:MS). The Contracting Officer is responsible for ensuring that all aspects of the acquisition are conducted in accordance with all applicable rules and regulations. In the event of a conflict between the TEC and the factors stated in the RFQ, the RFQ shall govern. The Contracting Officer is also the source selection authority for this acquisition.

i. Additional elements of responsibility include:

1. Preparing and issuing the RFP

2. Issuing amendments, if any

3. Awarding the Task Order http://farsite.hill.af.mil/vffara.htm

4. Notifying unsuccessful offeror

b. Technical Evaluation Committee (TEC) The TEC is primarily responsible for the evaluation of the non-price portion of the proposals in accordance with the evaluation factors contained in the RFQ and the subsequent preparation of a written evaluation for each proposal that addresses the evaluation factors in the RFQ. Discussions are not anticipated or required. However, clarifications may be needed. In the event any clarifications are needed, the TEC Chairperson will notify the Contracting Officer.

i. The TEC will consist of the following members:

1. Carol Hyldahl, TEC Chairperson

2. Maureen Burns

3. Andrew Caffrey

4. EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS

a. General – TEC members will evaluate each proposal in accordance with the evaluation factors for award as stated in the solicitation and will consider only those items that are included in the offeror’s response and the information related to the evaluation factors. Evaluators may not add, subtract, or change the evaluation factors. In conducting the evaluation, evaluators shall consider the Evaluation Instructions outlined in Attachment 2.

b. Ratings – The TEC will rate each proposal against the technical evaluation factors using the adjectival ratings listed in Section 6 – RATINGS. The TEC will use Attachment 3 – Individual Proposal Evaluation Worksheet, to provide a narrative to support their individual ratings. The TEC will use Attachment 4 – Technical Evaluation Summary Report, to provide a narrative to support their overall consensus for each proposed offeror.

The adjectival ratings are: PASS and FAIL.

Evaluators will assess the information provided by the offeror’s technical proposal and assign an adjectival rating for each evaluation factor. Each adjectival rating must be supported by a narrative evaluation signed by the team, which discusses strengths and weaknesses that were considered in the rating.

The importance of the evaluation narrative cannot be over-emphasized. The substantiation of facts in support of conclusions is an essential tool in award selection. It is highly important to tie the narrative for each factor back to the definition of each rating. If the adjectival ratings are not clearly consistent with the narrative evaluation, the evaluators may be requested by the CO to adjust the narrative or rating accordingly.

c. Price Evaluation

i. Price analysis will be used to evaluate price.

ii. The IRS will select an offeror for award on the basis of technical acceptance and fair and reasonable price.

iii. Price will be evaluated by the CO.

5. EVALUATION CRITERIA

Award shall be made to the offeror whose proposal is determined to be the most advantageous to the Government based on the evaluation criteria set forth below. Technical factors include all factors other than the cost/price factor.

Each contractor’s proposal will be rated in accordance with its content. The Government will not assume adequacy of performance in areas not specified in a contractor’s written proposal.

Technical Factors 1-3 are listed in descending order of importance.

a. Factor 1: Technical Services

b. Factor 2: Price

Factor 1 - Technical Approach The IRS shall evaluate the contractor’s proposal to assess the degree to which Contractor’s overall technical approach demonstrates their ability to perform the required services in the Performance Work Statement Statement. Criteria for this Factor shall clearly describe how the contractor intends to manage and approach the requirements as outlined in the Performance Work Statement Statement. The technical proposal offer will be evaluated on how clearly the contractor demonstrates their approach

Factor 2 – Price

For the purpose of evaluation, the evaluated rates shall include the base period and all other costs or prices, as applicable. Prices will be evaluated; but will not be assigned an adjectival rating. The Government will evaluate proposed prices to determine if the prices are fair and reasonable, reflect a clear understanding of the IRS’ requirements (unlimited annual downloads from royalty database for a fixed price), and are consistent with the Offeror’s technical proposal.

The Government may use various price analysis techniques and procedures to ensure a fair and reasonable price. Examples of such techniques include but are not limited to a comparison of proposed prices received in response to the solicitation. Normally, adequate price competition establishes a fair and reasonable price.

6. RATINGS

The TEC will assess the information provided by the offeror’s technical proposal and assign an adjectival rating for each evaluation factor. Each adjectival rating must be supported by a narrative evaluation signed by the team, which discusses strengths and weaknesses that were considered in the rating. Ratings will focus on the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies of responses to each evaluation factor.

Significant Strength: An attribute in the proposal that is substantially very likely to lead or contribute to successful contract performance.

Strength: An attribute in the proposal that is likely to lead or contribute to successful contract performance.

Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Significant Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Deficiency: A material failure of an offer to meet a Government requirement or a combination of weaknesses or significant weaknesses in an offer that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

Rating Definition for Factor 1 - Technical Services:

Rating Description

Pass The offeror has explicitly described how they can meet all of the requirements within the PWS.

Fail The offeror has not explicitly described how they can meet all of the requirements within the PWS.

Rating Definition for Factor 2 - Price:

Rating Description

Pass The offeror’s pricing allows the IRS unlimited annual downloads from royalty database at a competitive and fair set price.

Fail The offeror’s pricing does not allow the IRS unlimited annual downloads from royalty database at a competitive and fair set price.

7. TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT

The technical evaluation report is an analysis of all proposals based on the evaluation factors in the RFQ. At the conclusion of the evaluation, the TEC will document its findings in the report. The report shall include a narrative summary of facts and findings.

The TEC Chairperson will prepare a detailed Technical Evaluation Report which will contain:

a. Adjectival ratings for all technical evaluation factors for each proposal, and

b. A detailed narrative for each proposal discussing the deficiencies, strengths, weaknesses and risks with respect to each evaluation factor.

8. BASIS FOR AWARD

Award shall be made to the offeror whose proposal is determined to be the most advantageous to the Government based on the evaluation criteria set forth below. The selection of a contractor under this RFQ will be at the sole discretion of the Source Selection Authority (SSA) based on the “best value” overall to the Government. Best value means an acquisition process that results in the most advantageous acquisition decision for the Government performed through an integrated assessment and trade-off between technical factors and cost/price. Technical factors include all factors other than the cost/price factor.

Although technical factors combined are significantly more important than cost/price, the Government will not automatically award to an offeror that submits a proposal receiving the highest technical rating. In determining the best overall value, the Government has the discretion to make an award to an offeror whose proposal cost/price is lower than that of an offeror whose proposal receives the highest technical rating. Although cost/price is of less importance than technical factors combined, the closer proposal technical ratings are to one another, the more important cost/price consideration becomes in determining the best value to the Government.

9. SAFEGUARDING INFORMATION

a. General – After receipt of the proposal, none of the information contained in them or concerning the number or identity of the offeror shall be made available to the public or to anyone in the government not having a need-to-know. Proper care to protect all proposal evaluation data on a strict need-to-know basis shall be exercised. During the evaluation process, approval by the Contracting Officer shall be obtained prior to release of any information concerning the evaluation.

b. Notification – Notification to unsuccessful offeror(s) shall be accomplished by the Contracting Officer in accordance with FAR Part 5.301.

c. Retention of Documentation - The final report will become part of the

OFFICIAL CONTRACT FILE.

10. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1 – Certification (Conflict of Interest/Certificate of Non-Disclosure) Attachment 2 – Evaluation Instructions Attachment 3 – Individual Proposal Evaluation Worksheet Attachment 4 – Technical Evaluation Summary Report

ATTACHMENT 1

CERTIFICATIONS

In reference to the planning and acquisition for Request for Quote 5000130266, I make the following certifications:

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

I do hereby acknowledge that I have read paragraph 2a, CONFLICT OF INTEREST, of the Technical Evaluation Plan. I certify that neither I nor my immediate family, to the best of my knowledge, possess any financial interest whatsoever in any company, parent or subsidiary, which is proposing or quoting on or is in any way involved with the proposed subject acquisition, now being considered by the Technical Evaluation Team which I am a member.

Should any company in which I or my immediate family have a financial interest submit proposals to my team, I will reveal immediately such interest to the Contracting Officer in writing and withdraw from participation in the evaluation.

NON-DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

The material contained herein is source information in accordance with paragraph 3.104-4(b) of the Federal Acquisition Regulation. It shall be safeguarded from unauthorized disclosure to any person not specifically authorized to receive it and shall be restricted to the specific use or purpose for which it was furnished.

I certify that I will make no unauthorized disclosure or release of any source selection information. This includes the contents of all offers submitted in response to RFQ Number 5000130266, and any evaluations thereof. I further certify that I will not discuss with any unauthorized person the Technical Evaluation Team’s findings or decisions, the offerors approaches, or any data generated during the source selection process. I understand that unauthorized disclosure of any source selection information may subject me to disciplinary or adverse administrative action.

Signature Date

ATTACHMENT 2

EVALUATION INSTRUCTIONS

1. INTRODUCTION

The offeror is required to submit a written response detailing its technical approach and understanding of the RFQ. The proposal will be evaluated using Attachments 3, 4, 5, and 6.

The Technical Evaluation Committee (TEC) is responsible for completing its assigned functions in accordance with the technical evaluation procedures established for this procurement. The TEC will be responsible for completing the required evaluation forms. Upon completion of the evaluation process, the TEC will assist in the preparation of the Technical Evaluation Report (TEP). The TEC must be prepared to devote its full efforts to the evaluation until it is complete.

2. TECHNICAL EVALUATIONS

Each evaluator must be thoroughly familiar with the requirements in the RFQ, Evaluation Factors for Award, and this Technical Evaluation Plan. Thus, if not already done, each evaluator must familiarize him/herself with these documents prior to evaluating proposals. Once these documents have been reviewed and understood, the evaluation can begin. Each evaluator must thoroughly evaluate the adequacy and acceptability of each proposal based on the Evaluation Factors for Award in this plan. Each offeror’s proposal must not be evaluated against the other proposals. Evaluators will note whether or not each proposal contains the information requested.

Evaluators will only evaluate the technical factors. Evaluators will independently document the results of their individual evaluation using the forms in Attachment 3, highlighting the proposal’s specific strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies; and providing an overall evaluation narrative.

Evaluator’s should be accurate in describing an offeror’s strengths, weaknesses and deficiencies.

Avoid generalizations of merits and, instead, state the facts on which such generalizations were made. Specific references to a statement and/or page of each offeror’s response should be recorded for each strength, weakness, or deficiency listed. The documented strengths, weaknesses, or deficiencies will ultimately form the basis of the award decision and will be crucial in conducting debriefings to unsuccessful offerors.

Evaluate only what is in the proposal. Do not interpret what is said in the proposal. Don’t assume that the offeror will do, or not do something if it is not actually stated. Do not infuse personal knowledge or judgment as a substitute for what is written. Evaluate each proposal on its own merit. Areas of uncertainty should be listed as a clarification and bought to the Contracting Officer’s attention. In turn a formal clarification will be requested from the offeror.

Each evaluator must:

a. Use the same set of rating values to provide consistency and fairness in the evaluation and to aid in understanding the evaluation results. It is imperative that proposals are evaluated consistently. As an additional point of reference, a Contractor’s proposal is evaluated by comparing specific parts of the submitted data against standards/requirements as stated in the RFQ and not by comparing the elements in the various Contractors’ submissions with each other.

b. Provide a narrative of each individual evaluation factor as indicated in Attachments 3 and

4. Narratives must document and address any strengths or weaknesses. Definitions of these terms are as follows:

Significant Strength: An attribute in the proposal that is substantially very likely to lead or contribute to successful contract performance.

Strength: An attribute in the proposal that is likely to lead or contribute to successful contract performance.

Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Significant Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Deficiency: A material failure of an offer to meet a Government requirement or a combination of weaknesses or significant weaknesses in an offer that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

3. TECHNICAL PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

No pricing information shall be included in the Technical Volume. The Technical Volume must support the pricing submitted in the Price Proposal.

The Technical Volume shall consist of the following:

1. Executive Summary – No Page Limit

2. Technical Approach – Limited to 5 Pages

3. Quality Control Plan

The Price Volume shall consist of the following:

1. Price Quote

2. Small Business Participation Plan

Executive Summary Identify points of contact authorized to negotiate along with your DUNS number and SAMS identifier. Include acknowledgement of all amendments, a concise narrative summary of the entire proposal, including significant risks, and a highlight of any key or unique features, excluding Price.

The salient features shall tie in with the evaluation factors. Any summary material presented here shall not be considered as meeting the requirements for any portion(s) of other volumes of the proposal.

Technical Approach The offeror shall submit a proposal that demonstrates their technical approach to accomplishing the work to be performed, as described in the Performance Work Statement (PWS), within the timeline specified by either performance periods or documented in a deliverable schedule. The technical approach shall also demonstrate an offeror’s understanding of the work to be performed and their ability to successfully execute their approach.

Offerors shall describe within their technical approach any deviations to the historical level of effort and labor mix as stated within the PWS.

A Quality Control Plan, which correlates to the Performance Requirements Summary and Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan.

Volume II Subcontracting Plan The Government will evaluate the Small Business Participation Plan on its quality, level of appropriate detail, feasibility, cost effectiveness and the Contractor’s good faith effort to help IRS achieve its Small Business Subcontracting goals listed below:

Small Business (SB) 37.46% Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) 5% Woman-Owned Small Business (WOSB) 5% HUBZone Business (HUBZone) 3% Service Disabled Veteran Owned Business (SDVOSB) 3% Price For the purpose of evaluation, the evaluated rates shall include the base period all other costs or prices, as applicable. Prices will be evaluated; but will not be assigned an adjectival rating. The Government will evaluate proposed prices to determine if the prices are fair and reasonable, reflect a clear understanding of the IRS’ requirements (unlimited annual downloads from royalty database), and are consistent with the Offeror’s technical proposal.

4. EVALUATION FACTORS & RATING DEFINITIONS

The technical evaluation factors and herein will be evaluated in descending order of importance:

Factor 1 – Technical Services

Technical Approach will be assessed on the offeror’s ability to demonstrate a clear understanding of the work to be performed. The proposed technical solution shall demonstrate the Offeror’s ability to successfully execute their approach to this acquisition as cited in the PWS. The offeror’s proposal shall outline an effective, efficient, achievable approach for accomplishing the work to be performed by this task order within the timeline specified by the performance periods.

Factor 2 – Pricing

a. Did the offeror’s pricing meet the IRS’ technical needs of unlimited annual data downloads for a fair and fixed price?

Rating System

Offeror’s proposals will be evaluated by comparing specific parts of the submitted data against the technical evaluation criteria set forth in the RFQ; not by comparing the elements in the various Offeror’s submissions with each other. Individual Evaluators will judge the merits of each criterion identified for evaluation and will assign a rating to each criterion based on the following Adjectival Rating System.

Rating Definition for Factor 1 - Technical Services:

Rating Description

Pass The offeror has explicitly described how they can meet all of the requirements within the PWS.

Fail The offeror has not explicitly described how they can meet all of the requirements within the PWS.

Rating Definition for Factor 2 - Price:

Rating Description

Pass The offeror’s pricing allows the IRS unlimited annual downloads from royalty database at a competitive and fair fixed price.

Fail The offeror’s pricing does not allow the IRS unlimited annual downloads from royalty database at a competitive and fair fixed price.

An unacceptable rating for any factor will render the entire proposal unacceptable.

ATTACHMENT 3

INDIVIDUAL PROPOSAL EVALUATION WORKSHEET

Factor 1: Technical Approach

OFFEROR: ___________________________________________________

EVALUATOR: _____________________________ DATE: ____________

STRENGTHS:

WEAKNESSES:

CLARIFICATION QUESTIONS:

RATING: ________________________

INDIVIDUAL PROPOSAL EVALUATION WORKSHEET

Factor 2: Past Performance

OFFEROR: ___________________________________________________

EVALUATOR: _____________________________ DATE: ____________

STRENGTHS:

WEAKNESSES:

CLARIFICATION QUESTIONS:

RATING: ________________________

ATTACHMENT 4

TECHNICAL EVALUATION SUMMARY REPORT

Member #1 – Carol Hyldahl (Chairperson) Member #2 – Maureen Burns Member #3 – Andrew Caffrey

Summary of Evaluation Process

Technical Proposals were received on ________ from ______________ in response to RFQ Number 5000130266.

Prior to receiving the technical proposals, the panel members defined the technical factors, developed an importance scheme for the factors, developed criteria for each factor, and created an overall adjectival rating system for each of the factors. Offerors were evaluated under two (2) factors.

Factor 1: Technical Services Factor 2: Price

Panel members individually reviewed, rated and documented their recommendations for each criteria of the proposal based on the tasks and evaluation criteria specified in the solicitation.

Each individual evaluation was shared with the panel. On _________, the panel convened to discuss differences and reach consensus on each of the evaluation criteria. There were no significant issues or problems encountered by the panel in the evaluation process. The results of the evaluation are as shown on the following page:

Evaluation Factors Offeror 1 Offeror 2 Offeror 3

Factor 1: Technical Approach Rating Rating Rating

Factor 2: Pricing (CO only) Rating Rating Rating

Rating Definitions For: Factor 1 - Technical Services

Rating Description

Pass The offeror has explicitly described how they can meet all of the requirements within the PWS.

Fail The offeror has not explicitly described how they can meet all of the requirements within the PWS.

NARRATIVE

1. Factor 1: Technical Services

Technical Approach will be assessed on the offeror’s ability to demonstrate a clear understanding of the work to be performed. The proposed technical solution shall demonstrate the Offeror’s ability to successfully execute their approach to this acquisition as cited in the Performance Work Statement (PWS). The offeror’s proposal shall outline an effective, efficient, achievable approach for accomplishing the work to be performed by this task order within the timeline specified by the performance periods.

Offeror Rating

Discuss:

• Significant strengths, weaknesses or deficiencies for each offeror that justify the rating given for their technical approach.

2. Factor 2: Pricing

a. Did the offeror’s pricing meet the IRS’ technical needs of unlimited annual data downloads for a fair fixed price?

Offeror Rating

Discuss:

• Significant strengths, weaknesses or deficiencies for each offeror that justify the rating given for their technical approach.

PANEL RECOMMENDATION

The Technical Evaluation Panel recommends the Contracting Officer award the contract to

OFFEROR.

Also provide a summary that justifies the panel’s recommendation for choosing this particular offeror for this requirement.

Source Selection Information See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP)

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE LB&I

Royalty Database

SHOPPING CART: 5000130266

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This performance-based Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) sets forth the procedures and guidance that the IRS will use to evaluate and reward the performance of the Vendor in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Contract.

Whereas the IRS and the Vendor have entered a partnership with shared objectives to achieve the outcome indicated in the Contract, the QASP consolidates two historically separate documents into one: The Contractor Quality Control Plan (QCP), and the QASP (historically a Government-only document). Accordingly, this document shall be contractually binding.

The QASP shall be used as a Government document to enforce the inspection and acceptance of the Contract. The QASP describes the mechanism for documenting noteworthy accomplishments or discrepancies for work performed by the Vendor. Information generated from the IRS, Large Business & International (LB&I)’s surveillance activities will directly feed into LB&I’s performance discussions with the Vendor.

The QASP can be changed/updated, etc. It is intended to be a “living” document that should be revised or modified as circumstances warrant. Either the Vendor or the Government may initiate changes to the QASP. Bilateral changes may be made to the plan at any time during contract performance. Such changes shall not entitle the Vendor to any equitable adjustments or to any other compensation for performance in a prior period.

The Vendor is responsible and shall manage and ensure that quality controls meet the terms of the Contract.

1.1 Purpose of the QASP

The QASP provides the LB&I’s Technical Point-of-Contract (TPOC), the Contracting Officer Representative (COR), and the Contracting Officer (CO) the ability to conduct surveillance activities of Vendor performance during the life of this Contract. The QASP details how and when the LB&I will monitor, evaluate, and document Vendor performance with regards to the Performance Work Statement

(PWS).

The QASP is intended to accomplish the following:

1) Define the role and responsibilities of participating Government officials.

2) Define the key services that will be assessed.

3) Describe the evaluation method that will be employed by the Government in assessing the Vendor’s performance.

4) Describe the process of performance assessment documentation.

1.2 Roles and Responsibilities of Government Officials

The QASP is a guide to be used by IRS personnel to conduct surveillance activities of the Vendor after Contract award. LB&I’s TPOC will continually review the services provided by the Vendor. The COR and TPOC will conduct review of contract specific invoices. The TPOC and the CO will use the QASP as a tool to evaluate if the Vendor-provided service meets the performance standards in the contract.

The Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) is responsible for technical administration.

Although principally responsible for administration of this surveillance plan, the COR relies upon the TPOC to perform and document the detailed surveillance activities required by the plan.

The COR is not empowered to make any contractual commitments or to authorize any contractual changes on the Government’s behalf. Any changes that the Vendor deems may affect contract price, terms, or conditions shall be referred to the CO for action.

The CO will have responsibility for the Vendor’s performance in contract compliance. In addition, the CO will review any assessment of the Vendor’s performance and will resolve all differences between the Government and the Vendor. The CO may call upon the technical expertise of other Government officials as required.

1.3 Key Services for Assessment

The IRS and the Vendor have entered a partnership with shared objectives to achieve the services indicated in the PWS (Sections C.4. through C.7.). Each task is to successfully deliver the indicated service. To successfully complete each task must be produced by the Vendor as indicated in the

PWS.

2.0 Rating Elements and Standards of Performance for Key Services

The Vendor’s performance shall be evaluated using the following Four Performance Standards: Source Data Availability, Electronic Access to Website, Customer Support, and Fulfillment of Training Requests. The TPOC will monitor each of the Four Performance Standards by relying on communications with IRS end-users. If there is a problem with any of the Four Performance Standards, then the TPOC will contact the CO immediately for resolution. At the end of the Contract’s Period of Performance any unresolved problems with the Four Performance Standards will be considered as Unsatisfactory Performance by the Vendor. 3.0 Process of Quality Assurance Assessment

A determination of the Vendor’s overall performance will be on an annual basis. The IRS will provide annual customer feedback to the Vendor by summarizing the past year’s surveillance activities. In addition, IRS will provide customer feedback from Government personnel involved in the use of this service. As soon as a discrepancy is identified with a service associated with this Contract, the CO will notify the Vendor.

4.0 Performance Requirements Summary

The development of a Performance Requirements Summary presents the services to be monitored, gives the surveillance methodology for each service, provides the acceptable performance rating for each service, and describes the type of monitoring to be performed by IRS TPOC.

Performance Requirements Summary Services Monitored Surveillance

Methodology Performance Rating at end of

POP

Type of Monitoring

Source Data Availability End user communications

Resolved Issues – PASS Unresolved Issues -- FAIL

Daily

Electronic Access to Website

End user communications

Resolved Issues – PASS Unresolved Issues -- FAIL

Daily

Customer Support End user communications

Resolved Issues – PASS Unresolved Issues -- FAIL

Daily

Fulfillment of Training Requests

End user communications

Resolved Issues – PASS Unresolved Issues -- FAIL

Daily

5.0 Surveillance Documentation

A Development Performance Standards Checklist will be used by IRS personnel conducting the monitoring of the Contractor’s performance on this Contract.

Performance evaluations associated with the performance categories of Source Data Availability, Electronic Access to Website, Customer Support, and Fulfillment of Training Requests for the contract will be documented. The Performance Standards Checklist will be submitted by the TPOC to the CO for appropriate action.

7.0 Quality Control Plan

In this section, the Vendor that is awarded the Contract shall establish and maintain a complete Quality Control Plan (QCP) to ensure that the requirements of the Contract are provided as specified.

The QCP shall describe the methods for identifying and preventing problems before the level of performance becomes unacceptable. This Plan is due 60 days after Contract Award.

INTRODUCTION/INSTRUCTIONS

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) anticipates awarding a Firm Fixed Price Order to procure Royalty Subscription Database.

INSTRUCTIONS:

Your response to this RFQ requires you provide the Line Items listed in the Pricing Table and to provide the Part Number, List Price, any applicable discounted price, and the extended price.

1. You must be an authorized reseller of the products being procured.

2. Offerors who bid are to comply with all provisions in the solicitation.

3. The specified manufacturer parts and/or part numbers contained in the Government’s requirement are final and substitutions are not permissible.

4. The following must be completed and returned with your quote in order for your quote to be considered for award:

- FAR 52.204-24 Representation Regarding Certain Telecommunications and Video Surveillance Services or Equipment. (Aug 2019)

- FAR 52.209-2 Prohibition on Contracting with Inverted Domestic Corporations-Representation

- FAR 52.209-11 Representation by Corporations Regarding Delinquent Tax Liability or a Felony Conviction Under Any Law

- IR1052.209-9002 Notice and Consent to Disclose and Use of Taxpayer Return Information

- IR1052.232-9001 Electronic Invoicing and Payment Requirements for the Invoice Processing Platform

(IPP)

THE QUOTATATION MUST INCLUDE ALL LINE ITEMS IN EXACTLY THE ORDER THEY ARE

PRESENTED IN THIS SOLICITATION’S “PRICING” SECTION.

Clauses and Provisions

IR1052.232-9001 Electronic Invoicing and Payment Requirements for the Invoice Processing Platform (IPP) (Jul 2019)

(a) Definitions:

"Short payment" as used in this clause means the partial payment of an invoice for goods/services actually rendered at the time of payment when the invoice includes additional goods/services that have not yet been provided/rendered.

“Short payment” example: The contract requires the delivery of a set number of items, with the price, delivery location, and delivery due date also specified. The vendor delivers 50% of the items as specified but invoices for 100% of the items. Before implementation of the IPP, the IRS would have paid the vendor for the items delivered and instructed the vendor to re-invoice the IRS when the balances of the items were delivered. In other words, the IRS would "short pay" the invoice since the IRS did not remit payment for the full invoice amount. With implementation of the IPP, the IRS can no longer do this because the IRS cannot accept an electronic invoice that includes items not yet received. The IRS will reject the invoice. The vendor needs to submit an invoice for only the items received by the IRS (in this case, 50%), and, if these items meet all other contract terms and conditions, the IRS will pay the invoiced amount. The vendor submits subsequent invoice(s) for items as they are delivered and accepted.

(a) The Invoice Processing Platform (IPP) is a secure Web-based electronic invoicing and payment information service available to all Federal agencies and their suppliers. Effective October 1, 2012, invoicing for payment through the IPP will be mandatory for all new contract awards. Additional information regarding the IPP may be found at the IPP website address https://www.ipp.gov.

Contractors must complete the contractor point of contact information below and submit it with their proposal submissions. Contractors may contact the IPP Helpdesk for assistance via e-mail at ippgroup@stls.frb.org or via phone at (866) 973-3131. Once a contract award has been made, the contractor will be contacted by the IPP via e-mail to set-up an account. It will be necessary for contractors to login to their IPP accounts every 90 days to keep their IPP accounts active.

(b) Contractor Point of Contact Information Contractor Name:

Contractor IPP Point of Contact Name:

Contractor Phone Number:

Contractor E-mail Address:

(c) Electronic Invoicing and…