15 Solicitation Cover Letter- RFQ 8437(Revised SEWP).pdf

REQUEST FOR QUOTATION (RFP) #8437

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFEROR

NASA SEWP

Date: 09/5/2024

Ordering Process: Standard Ordering Procedures (IAW FAR 16.505)

Task Title: Resident Solutions Engineer (RSE) Support Services

Project Scope: The scope of this task order encompasses engineering support services related to HashiCorp Terraform Solutions configurations, providing comprehensive support for the Infrastructure as Code (IaC) as code server management process and configured environment in accordance with the attached Performance Work Statement (PWS).

The following pertinent facts regarding this request for quote:

Contract Type: Firm Fixed Price (FFP)

Set-Aside: This action is set aside as 100% Small business under authority of FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i)(F). Only small business offerors will be considered for award.

NAICS Code: 541519

Period of Performance: Four (4) months after contract award.

A. INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFEROR:

1. General Submission Requirements

• Technical and Price Quotation due date and time September 12, 2024, 3:00pm

Eastern Time (EST).

Send your quotation to the Contracting Officer (CO) Jessica Camunez at jessica.r.camunez.civ@irs.gov include RFQ #8437 Resident Solutions Engineer (RSE) Support Services in the subject line. Quotation must remain valid until October 7, 2024. Please submit questions to jessica.r.camunez.civ@irs.gov.

Questions on Request for Quote (RFQ): Submit questions to the CO via email to jessica.r.camunez.civ@irs.gov by September 9, 2024, 10am EST. Questions submitted after this date will not be responded to unless it is in the best interest of the Government.

The Government will compile all questions and responses and provide them to all responding Offerors via the NASA SEWP System. The only method by which any terms of the RFQ may be modified is by an amendment to be generated by the CO. No other communications made, whether oral or in writing (e.g., Industry Questions & Answers prior to response closing date and time, clarifications, etc.), will modify or supersede the terms of the RFQ.

2. Quotation Submission Requirements & Page Limitations mailto:jessica.r.camunez.civ@irs.gov

RFP #8437

This acquisition is being conducted in accordance with FAR 16.505; therefore, the contracting techniques under FAR 15.3 do not apply. As such, the government is not obligated to determine a competitive range, conduct interchanges with all contractors, or solicit final revised quotes.

Offerors will be required to provide a price and technical quote in accordance with the instructions herein.

When responding to this RFQ, in addition to the other instructions/requirements in this document, the offeror must provide a Technical and separate price quotation in order to be compliant with submission. Pages in excess of stated page limitations will not be evaluated.

I. Technical Quotation

Total Technical Quotation page count shall not exceed 12 pages.

Technical Approach - The Offeror shall describe their technical approach for completing the work in the attached PWS. The technical quotation shall reference each “paragraph number” in the PWS and provide the Offeror’s response to each paragraph.

II. Price Quotation

Price Quotation- The price quotation data shall be submitted in a single MS Excel file which may have as many worksheets as necessary for including all detailed data and information.

a. Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) Submission

The contractor shall submit a firm fixed price (FFP) quotation as required to support the objectives in the PWS. The Excel worksheet supporting detail shall include the labor categories, estimate of hours for each category, composite hourly rates, extended amounts, and a total amount for each task period, and a grand summary total for all task periods. A monthly payment schedule will be developed based on the approved resources utilized to support the task objectives by the contracting officer. The FFP payment schedule will begin in month one and continue through each performance period.

Conflict of Interest:

Any contractor (or member of its team (and /or subcontractor) having a conflict of interest as defined under FAR Part 9.5 must identify the conflict as soon as it is known and provide a recommended mitigation plan. Mitigation plans are required whenever a competing contractor has had unequal access to non-public information regarding the Task Order requirement or has assisted the Government in defining the Task Order requirements or evaluation criteria.

B. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD:

The award will be based on the offer most advantageous to the Government, by best value determination. The acquisition strategy will be a single award utilizing the NASA SEWP contract vehicle.

1. Basis for Award:

Award shall be made to the vendor whose quote is determined to be the most advantageous to the Government based on the evaluation criteria set forth above. The selection of a contractor under this RFQ will be at the sole discretion of the Contracting Officer (CO) 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 the technical factor and price. Technical factor includes all factor(s) other than the price factor. Although the technical factor is more important than price, the Government will not automatically award to a vendor that submits a quote receiving the highest technical rating. In determining the best overall value, the Government has the discretion to make an award to a vendor whose quote price is lower than that of a vendor whose quote receives the highest technical rating. Although price is of less importance than technical factors combined, the closer quote technical ratings are to one another, the more important price consideration becomes in determining the best value to the Government.

Each Vendor’s quote will be rated in accordance with its content. The Government will not assume adequacy of performance in areas not specified in a vendor’s written quote. Quotes that are unrealistic in terms of either a technical or price nature may be reflective of an inherent risk, lack of competence, or indicative of failure to comprehend the complexity and risks associated with the solicitation requirements and may result in a determination of unacceptability.

2. Evaluation Factors/Criteria

Offerors will be evaluated under three (3) factors. Factors 1-2 are non-price factors listed in descending order of importance and when combined are of more importance than price. Factor 3

- Price will be evaluated, but will not be assigned an adjectival rating, or scored.

The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

Factor 1 – Technical Approach (includes technical approach and personnel) Factor 2 – Past Performance Factor 3 – Price

FACTOR 1- TECHNICAL APPROACH

The Offeror’s technical approach demonstrates a clear understanding of the work to be performed. The technical quotation shall demonstrate the Offeror’s ability to continue to successfully execute their approach to this acquisition as cited in the PWS. The quotation outlines an effective, efficient, achievable approach for continuing to accomplish the work to be performed by this task order within the timeline specified by either performance periods or documented in a deliverable schedule.

The Offeror’s quotation must demonstrate that the personnel have the relevant skill sets and experience to successfully execute the Offeror’s technical approach as identified in the PWS.

The relevance, amount and duration of the experience are important. Relevant skill set is defined as work experience that is similar in size, scope and complexity to that outlined in the PWS.

Quotation Attributes for Factor 1

“A “significant strength” is an attribute of the offeror's quotation that exceeds the specified performance or capability requirements in a way that is substantially beneficial to the government.

A "strength" is an attribute of the offeror's quotation that exceeds the specified performance or capability requirements in a way that is beneficial to the government.

A "weakness" is an attribute of the Offeror’s quotation which is likely to increase the probability of unsuccessful contract performance.

A “significant weakness” in an attribute of the Offeror’s quotation which is likely to substantially increase the probability of unsuccessful contract performance.

A "deficiency" is a material failure of a quotation to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a quotation that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

Adjectival Rating for Factor 1

“Excellent” – The quotation outlines an effective, efficient, and achievable approach for meeting requirements as defined in the PWS. The quotation’s strengths significantly outweigh weaknesses, if any, in a manner that will significantly benefit the government. There are no significant weaknesses and no deficiencies. The risk of unsuccessful contract performance is at most very low.

“Good” – The quotation outlines an effective, efficient, and achievable approach for meeting requirements as defined in the PWS. The quotation’s strengths outweigh weaknesses in a manner that will benefit the government. There are no significant weaknesses and no deficiencies. The risk of unsuccessful contract performance is at most low.

“Satisfactory” – The quotation outlines an achievable approach for meeting requirements as defined in the PWS. The quotation’s strengths, if any, are balanced out by weaknesses. There are no deficiencies. The risk of unsuccessful contract performance is at most moderate.

“Unsatisfactory” – The quotation fails to demonstrate an achievable approach for meeting all the requirements defined in the PWS. The quotation contains a deficiency or multiple significant weaknesses that present an unacceptably high risk of performance failure. Quotation is not eligible for award.

FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE

The Offeror’s past performance will be evaluated based on the Offeror’s performance on projects similar in size, scope and complexity to the requirements listed within PWS. The offeror’s project profile must demonstrate performance, knowledge and expertise of the task areas listed in the PWS and have the requisite skills. This performance must be from within three (3) years of the issuance date of this RFQ. Evaluation of past performance will be based upon past performance information contained in and retrieved from the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS).

The offeror shall include one (1) recent and relevant contract for the same or similar items and include the contract number and project title, contract value, period or performance and points of contact with telephone numbers. Past performance is relevant when an offeror has been confronted with the kinds of challenges and risks contemplated by the solicitation. In order for the past performance to be considered recent, it must be performed within the past three (3) years. The Government can consider information about offerors past performance information from any source and is not restricted to information obtained from CPARS. Confidence ratings of substantial confidence, satisfactory confidence, no confidence or neutral/unknown confidence will be assigned, based on the consideration of the relevance, recency, and quality of prior services performed.

Adjectival Rating for Factor 2

“Substantial Confidence ” - Highly relevant, recent past performance record involving contracts similar to the solicitation requirements. Performance meet contractual requirements and there were no performance issues.

“Satisfactory Confidence” - Relevant and recent past performance record involving contracts similar to the solicitation requirements. Performance meet contractual requirements and there were no more than two performance issues.

“No Confidence” - May have a relevant and recent past performance record involving contracts similar to the solicitation requirements, however, performance did not meet contractual requirements. The contractual performance contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor's corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

“Neutral/Unknown Confidence” - The absence of relevant present and past performance information will result in the assignment of a neutral rating. The contractor has little or no recent/relevant past performance upon which to base a meaningful performance risk prediction.

FACTOR 3 – PRICE

There is no established page limitation for the Price Quote.

The IRS’ estimated labor mix for the Task Order is based on projected estimates of potential requirements. These estimates are given for evaluation purposes to provide a common basis for contractors to submit price quotes; however, they do not constitute a commitment by the Government to order services in these quantities under any Task Order awarded in response to this RFQ. Contractors shall use this information to quote labor categories, rates and discounts for this requirement. Contractors may quote an alternate labor mix to address the estimated labor mix shown in the table above titled “Estimated Hours and Labor Categories”, however it must be supported with detailed information in the Technical Quote that explains how the quoted labor mix will accomplish the tasks set forth in the RFQ. If a different labor mix is quoted, the Government will evaluate the contractor’s quoted price. If the solution is deemed not adequate, the Government will note it as a significant weakness in the Technical Approach during the evaluation process. Quotes receiving a significant weakness for an inadequate labor mix cannot receive an adjectival rating.

Contractors are strongly encouraged to provide additional discounts and price reductions. The estimated labor hours included in price quote, are for evaluation purposes only and do not obligate the Government to award such labor hours.

All quotations shall be in accordance with the procedures set forth in the NASA SEWP contract.

For purpose of evaluation, the evaluated total price shall include the base period, option periods, and all other costs or prices, as applicable. The Government will evaluate proposed prices in accordance with FAR Subpart 15.404-1(b). The Government will evaluate proposed prices to determine if the prices are fair and reasonable, reflect a clear understanding of the requirements, and are consistent with the Vendor’s technical quote.

Adjectival Rating for Factor 3

Price will be evaluated, but will not be assigned an adjectival rating, or scored.

Attachments:

1. RFQ – 8437 Performance Work Statement

2. RFQ – 8437 Provisions and Clauses