Attachment 1 Instructions to Offerors_Evaluation Criteria_Amendment 2.docx

RFP 24322623R0004 Postal Service Health Benefits System (PSHBS) Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Contract

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS & EVALUATION CRITERIA

1. INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

The following instructions are for the preparation and submission of proposals. The purpose of this section is to establish requirements for the format and content of proposals so that proposals contain all essential information and can be evaluated equitably.

Offerors are instructed to read the entire Request for Proposal (RFP) document, including all attachments, prior to submitting questions or preparing their proposal. Omission of any required information from the proposal submission may result in rejection of the Offeror’s proposal.

Proposals shall be valid for a minimum of 180 days after RFP closing date.

Late proposals will not be accepted for evaluation. Please be advised that timeliness is determined by the date and time an Offeror’s proposal is received by the Government, not when an Offeror attempted transmission. Please do not wait until the last minute to submit proposals.

Offeror proposals must consist of all four (4) volumes:

· Volume 1 – General Proposal Documents such as Standard Form (SF) 1449, Provisions, Proposal Checklist, Cover letter, etc.

· Volume 2 – Phase I Proposal Documents related to the following Factors:

· Factor 1: Corporate Capability and Experience

· Factor 2: Past Performance

· Volume 3 – Phase II Proposal Documents related to the following Factors:

· Factor 3: Technical Solution

· Sub-Factor 1: PSHBS Development

· Sub-Factor 2: Requirements Traceability Matrix (RTM)

· Factor 4: Management Approach

· Volume 4 – Phase II Proposal Documents related to the following Factor:

· Factor 5: Price

Offeror’s proposals must be submitted via Microsoft Teams. All proposal documents must be uploaded into the four (4) separate folders identified by Volume Number. No paper or email versions of your proposal will be accepted. Any paper or email proposals received will not be evaluated and considered for award.

To successfully submit all elements of a proposal, only use fully supported browsers. Offerors must review the following link for the limits and specifications for Microsoft Teams to assist with access: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoftteams/limits-specifications-teams.

All information within the page limitations of the proposal is subject to evaluation. The Government will evaluate proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria set forth below.

The Government will not reimburse Offerors for any cost incurred for the preparation and submission of a proposal in response to this solicitation.

2. MICROSOFT TEAMS AND PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS

To access and submit a timely proposal to the Postal Service Health Benefits System (PSHBS) Teams workspace, the Offeror must submit an email request to join the workspace no later than 4:00 P.M. Eastern Standard Time (EST) Tuesday, March 22, 2023, to opopostalmailbox1@opm.gov. The deadline to request access to the PSHBS Teams workspace will not be extended, even in the event the RFP closing date is extended. All interested Offerors must submit their request for access by the required date and time. Any proposal NOT sent to the Teams workspace, (i.e. directly to the Contracting Officer or any other point of contact) will be determined non-responsive and considered ineligible for award.

The request must include:

· Names and emails of one Point of Contact (POC) and/or no more than two backup POCs to join the team’s workspace. The Offerors POCs should be designated individuals responsible for uploading proposal documents in the team’s workspace. Only POCs identified in the request will have access to the workspace.

Once a Teams request is received, the Government will provide confirmation of receipt within three (3) business days. The Government may process the request as soon as five (5) business days after receipt of request but no later than three (3) business days after expiration of the response request due date. Upon process completion, a Welcome Email will be sent to the Offeror’s POC representative(s) which will include information needed to access the Offeror’s guest account (Private Channel) in the PSHBS Teams Workspace for submission of Proposal Documents. Offerors are encouraged to submit the request for its Teams Private Channel to submit a proposal as early as possible before the time/date specified above.

Additional Information:

· There is no fee or need for a Microsoft Team Account to submit proposals under this announcement.

· Documents uploaded to Offeror’s designated Private Channels are secure and confidential.

· The Offeror’s designated Private Channel is not viewable by other Offerors.

· Access to your Private Channel will be removed at the designated solicitation closing date and time.

NOTE: The Teams workspace is only for proposal submittals and not for submitting any questions on the solicitation.

2.1 Offeror’s responses must be submitted in accordance with the following instructions:

Offeror’s proposal must include all four (4) electronic volumes that contain all proposal documents via Microsoft Teams.

It is the sole responsibility of the Offeror to ensure that the electronic files submitted are virus free and can be opened and read by the government. Proposal submissions must not be locked, encrypted, or otherwise contain barriers to opening. All file and document submissions must be clearly indexed, logically assembled, and placed in the applicable Volume Folder located in each Offeror’s perspective Teams Private Channel. Proposal page limitations are applicable to this procurement.

The format of the proposal documents must be as follows:

1. Text must be formatted using a Times New Roman or Arial font with a minimum of 11-point and maximum of 12-point text font size and paragraphs must be separated by at least one blank line.

2. Page margins (exclusive of headers and footers) must be a minimum of 1-inch top, bottom and each side based on standard letter size of eight-and-a-half by eleven inches.

3. Footnotes, legends, or labels associated with tables or diagrams, and other information that is ancillary to the main text, may be presented in a font size smaller than 11-point font provided that any such smaller font is fully legible.

4. Tables and illustrations may be landscape.

5. Documents must include at a minimum appropriate page numbering and applicable related factor in the either the header or footer of each page.

6. Page limits much adhere to the page count limits provided in the format table below. The page limit includes all narratives, figures, tables, appendices, and all other ancillary materials. The following items do not count against the proposal page limitations: Proposal covers, title pages, divider pages, table of contents and list of acronyms.

7. Do not zip your files.

The following Proposal Format Table is to assist Offerors in organizing their proposal submission documents to ensure the government can easily identify which documents apply to which criteria for evaluation purposes. Offerors must adhere to the Volume Numbers, Format and/or Templates, and Page Limitations (if any) provided in the Proposal Format Table. Offerors must include its company name or company name abbreviation and Volume Number in the filename. For example, ABC Incorporated filename for Volume 1, SF-1499 is ABC.VOL1.SF1499.pdf. Offerors must ensure any file naming methodology used will be clearly understood by the Government. Additionally, the Offeror may provide a Cover Letter and/or Table of Contents that serves as an overall guide to what files are included, where they are located and brief descriptions of what the documents are. Inclusion of a Cover Letter and/or Table of Contents is optional. If a Cover Letter and/or Table of Contents is included, the document must be filed in folder Volume 1 of the Offeror’s Teams Private Channel.

2.2 Proposal Format Table:

GENERAL PROPOSAL DOCUMENTATION

PHASE I

PHASE II

Subfactor 1: PSHBS Development Subfactor 2: Requirements Traceability Matrix (RTM)

3. GENERAL EVALUATION APPROACH

The OPM evaluation team will perform the evaluation process in three (3) phases:

1. Compliance Review

2. Phase I

3. Phase II

1. Compliance Review: The Government will validate that an offeror’s proposal fully meets all the requirements as outlined in the solicitation and all associated documents. Any proposal that includes incomplete information or does not comply with the instructions set forth herein, may be considered non-responsive and removed from evaluation and ineligible for award. Only proposals considered responsive will proceed to Phase I of the evaluation process.

2. Phase I: The Government will perform an evaluation of each offeror’s proposal based on Factor 1, Corporate Capability and Experience and will be rated as Acceptable or Unacceptable. Factor 2, Past Performance, will be assigned a Confidence Assessment Rating.

The Firm Down-Select: The Government will use a firm down select evaluation between Phases I and II. When utilizing a firm down select, only proposals that are deemed technically acceptable in Phase I will move forward to be evaluated in Phase II. Therefore, all proposals that are NOT deemed acceptable will not receive an evaluation of the complete proposal.

3. Phase II: The Government will perform an evaluation of each offeror’s proposal that met the criteria of Phase I. The Government will perform an evaluation of each offeror’s proposal based on Factors 3 and 4 and all sub-factors. All factors/sub-factors, with the exception of the subcontracting plan, will receive a technical rating of either Unacceptable, Acceptable, or Exceptional. The subcontracting plan will be rated on a Pass/Fail basis. Subfactor ratings will NOT be rolled up to the factor level. Any offeror with a technical rating of Unacceptable for any factor/subfactor will be ineligible for contract award.

Once the government has evaluated all proposals that moved to Phase II, Factor 5 will be evaluated.

4. PROPOSAL COMPLIANCE REVIEW

Only proposals that fully meet and respond in accordance with all the requirements as outlined in the RFP and all associated attachments will be considered “Responsive” to receive further consideration to continue to evaluation Phase I.

The Offeror must adhere to the directions herein and submit the following information for Compliance:

· Submit a response to each section as identified in Volumes 1 through 4 (see details below);

· Submit each volume as separate files;

· Adhere to the stated limits identified in the proposal format table;

· Submit all required documents in response to the RFP before the submission deadline in the Offeror’s designated Teams Channel;

· Complete all tabs on the pricing workbook as per the instructions;

· Pricing for the initial task order must be built based upon the proposed labor rates for the Base IDIQ.

5. VOLUME 1: GENERAL PROPOSAL DOCUMENTS

This Volume allows for the submission of any documents required by the RFP, but which has not been covered in another volume. Information submitted in Volume 1 will be reviewed or evaluated for compliance but will not be assigned a rating. Volume 1 must consist of the following:

a. RFP Section A – SF 1449 (Attachment 9) and Acknowledgement of Amendments (Attachment 10)

For Volumes 1 through 4, the Offeror’s proposal must include all the evaluation elements an Offeror is submitting a proposal, shall be in the Offeror’s name as submitted in 17a (Identifies the Prime Contractor) and Signature of Contractor Block 30A (Contractor on the Standard Form (SF) 1449, Solicitation/Contract/Order for Commercial Items, with a corresponding CAGE Code and Unique Entity Identifier (UEI) (formally DUNS) in SAM.GOV that matches the Offeror name on the SF 1449, Block 30b (Name and Title of Signer).

b. Proposal Checklist (Attachment 11)

The Offeror shall provide answers to the all the questions in accordance with (Attachment 11), title, “Proposal Checklist”. No other format or additional proposal documentation will be considered.

c. Provisions and Clauses (Attachment 7)

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

2. Covered Telecommunications Equipment or Services Representation FAR (52.204-26)

3. Certification Regarding Responsibility Matters (FAR.209-5)

4. Information Regarding Responsibility Matters (FAR 52.209-7)

5. Representations and Certifications (SAM.GOV or 52.212-3)

d. Meaningful Relationship Commitment Letter

If an Offeror is sharing resources by way of a meaningful relationship within a corporate structure to meet minimum requirements and evaluation criteria from a parent company, affiliate, division, and/or subsidiary within a corporate structure, a meaningful relationship commitment letter(s) is required to be submitted with the proposal. If applicable, a meaningful relationship commitment letter with each entity must include the following information:

· Clear and legal identification of the meaningful relationship between the Offeror and entity within a corporate structure must be described.

· Each minimum requirement and evaluation criteria provided by the entity must be specifically identified.

· A statement of commitment as to the performance and utilization of the entity’s claimed resources under the PSHBS Task Orders

· The process for utilizing and implementing any claimed system, certification, and/or clearance obtained from the entity under PSHBS Task Orders.

· If only part of the Offeror’s organization has an approved System, Certification and/or Clearance, the Offeror must describe the distinction between which business units or sites and geographic locations have been approved.

· Authorized signatures with the ability to commit both the Offeror and entity. Print Name, Title, Phone Number, and E-mail address for each authorized signature.

1. If a parent organization has complete and full control over all meaningful relationship entities, the parent entity may prepare a single Meaningful Relationship Commitment Letter that identifies all elements required above.

2. If an Offeror is not sharing resources by way of a meaningful relationship within a corporate structure to meet minimum requirements and/or obtain scored evaluation criteria from a parent company, affiliate, division, and/or subsidiary within a corporate structure, a meaningful relationship commitment letter is not required to be submitted with the proposal.

3. For the purposes of this RFP, a “meaningful relationship” exists within a corporate structure when at least one of the following conditions exists:

· An entity is a wholly owned subsidiary of a parent organization.

· An entity is a parent of a wholly owned subsidiary.

· An entity operates under a single internal operational unit.

· An entity operates under a consolidated accounting system.

· An entity operates under a consolidated purchasing system.

· An entity operates under a consolidated human resources or personnel system.

· An entity operates under common policy and corporate guidelines.

· Operating structure between the entities includes internal organizational reporting lines and management chains for lines of business that operate across the formal corporate subsidiaries.

4. Definitions:

“Affiliates” are business concerns that are affiliates of each other if, directly or indirectly, either one controls or has the power to control the other, or another concern controls or has the power to control both.

“Division” is a separate business unit of a company representing a specific business function.

“Subsidiary” means an entity in which more than 50 percent of the entity is owned directly by a parent corporation; or through another subsidiary of a parent corporation.

“Within a corporate structure" is defined as having an established legal business relationship whereby entities share common resources, such as: (1) board of directors, (2) officers, (3) employees, and (4) shareholders or owners. An example is a multinational corporation with subsidiaries, divisions, and/or affiliates all part of the same multinational corporation.

5. Outside a corporate structure, such as a “Subcontractor” performance under a “Prime” Contractor or two separate companies that may share some resources and be considered “affiliates” but are not within the same corporate structure will not be considered for establishing Meaningful Relationship Commitments, OPM will not allow an Offeror to take credit for any evaluation element, including relevant experience project(s), system(s), or certification(s) as a “Subcontractor” in accordance with the following definitions:

“Prime” Contractor means the Contractor has privity-of-contract with the Government for all contractual obligations under a mutually binding legal relationship with the Government. In other words, when the Government awards a Contract to a Contractor, the Contractor is considered the “Prime” Contractor. For example, “Prime” Contractors are identified as such on the cover page of contracts or task orders such as:

· SF 1449 – Solicitation/Contract/Order for Commercial Items – (Block 17a identifies the Prime Contractor)

· SF 26 – Award/Contract – (Block 7 identifies the Prime Contractor)

· SF 33 – Solicitation, Offer, and Award – (Block 15A identifies the Prime Contractor)

· Department of Defense (DD) 1155 – Order for Supplies or Services (Block 9 identifies the Prime Contractor)

· Optional Form 307 – Contract Award (Block 7 identifies the Prime Contractor)

· GSA Form 300 – Order for Supplies and Services (Block 6 identifies the Prime Contractor)

6. The Government will allow an Offeror to take credit for any Project, System, Certification, and/or Facility Clearance from a parent company, affiliate, division, and/or subsidiary within a corporate structure so long as there is a “meaningful relationship” to the Offeror and formal “commitment letters” are provided by both parties to the Government. For example, if ABC Inc. is the Offeror and ABC Inc. is taking credit for the subsidiary, Best R&D LLC’s DCMA approved “Purchasing System”, ABC Inc. must show how PSHBS Task Orders will be processed through Best R&D LLC’s Purchasing System. Furthermore, ABC Inc. must submit a “meaningful relationship commitment letter”, between ABC Inc. and Best R&D LLC. that they will, in fact, process ABC Inc.’s PSHBS Task Orders through Best R&D LLC’s Purchasing System. When an Offeror is sharing resources from other entities by way of a Meaningful Relationship within a Corporate Structure, only one Offer (e.g., proposal) from that Corporate Structure shall be submitted.

7. Failure to follow instructions or to submit a meaningful relationship commitment letter(s) when required may result in an Offeror’s proposal being non-conforming to the RFP and rejected.

8. Meaningful relationship commitment letter(s) will be incorporated by reference into any resulting contract award.

9. Meaningful relationship commitment letters shall only be used within the offering Prime Contractor’s OR Joint Venture/Partnership Contractor Teaming Agreement (CTA) member's corporate structure. They are not available for use by subcontractors as subcontractors do not have privity of contract with the government.

e. Contractor Team Arrangement (CTA)

1. Offerors who are an existing Partnership or Joint Venture CTA as defined in FAR 9.601 may submit a proposal under this RFP subject to the following conditions:

i. The Offeror (e.g., Joint Venture or Prime Contractor) and each Contractor identified in an existing Partnership or Joint Venture CTA must be registered in SAM at https://www.sam.gov with a corresponding UEI) and CAGE Code and submit complete representations and certifications in accordance with FAR Provision 52.212-3 at the time of proposal submission.

ii. All minimum requirements and evaluation criteria must have been performed by the Offeror or existing Partnership or Joint Venture CTA.

iii. If the Offeror is a Joint Venture, it must meet the definition of a Joint Venture for size determination purposes (FAR 2.101 or 13 CFR 121.103).

iv. The Offeror must submit a complete copy of the existing CTA agreement that established the CTA relationship. The existing CTA agreement shall include the following:

a. Disclose the legal identity of each team member of the CTA.

b. Describe the relationship between the team members.

c. Disclose the form of ownership of each team member.

d. Disclose the primary point of contact of each team member.

e. Disclose the Prime who will be the only entity the government shall have privity.

f. Disclose any limitations on liability or authority for each team member.

g. Describe what resources each team member provides the teaming agreement.

h. A statement from each team member authorizing the use of that team member’s relevant experience and past performance in support of the Official Legal Entity’s proposal

i. For Joint Ventures, disclose whether the existing Joint Venture agreement designates a particular entity as the “team lead,” and if so, the existing Joint Venture agreement must clearly explain the specific duties/responsibilities of the “team lead” to the other members of the team and to the Government.

j. Describe the specific duties/responsibilities of each member of the team members as they relate to each other and explain the specific duties/responsibilities that each team member will have for purposes of contract performance and meeting the performance standards. All parties to the CTA agreement shall commit to ensure performance of the contract and to complete performance despite withdrawal of any member.

k. Address the circumstances and procedures for replacement of team members, including the team lead (note: replacement of team lead is only applicable for FAR 9.601(1) CTAs).

l. Address the duration of the existing CTA agreement, including when it became effective, when it expires, and the basis for termination. The duration of the CTA agreement must include the complete period of performance.

Note: Offerors whose existing CTA agreement that established the CTA relationship does not address items (a) through (l) above may, at its discretion, execute an addendum to the CTA agreement prior to submission of the proposal to address any items not already covered by the existing CTA agreement, in lieu of establishing a new CTA agreement. This addendum shall be attached with the CTA agreement in submission of the Offeror’s proposal.

2. Definitions:

“Contractor Team Arrangement” means an arrangement in which two or more companies form a Partnership or Joint Venture to act as a potential Prime Contractor (See FAR 9.601(1)); or, a potential Prime Contractor agrees with one or more other companies to have them act as its Subcontractors under a specified Government contract or acquisition program (See FAR 9.601(2). For the purposes of submitting an Offer under this solicitation, an existing CTA as defined in FAR 9.601(1) is allowable in accordance with the following paragraphs:

Any Prime/Subcontractor CTA as defined in FAR 9.601(2) Solicitation is limited to only First Tier Subcontractors as defined in 15 USC 632 (dd)(2) as a subcontractor who has a subcontract directly with the prime contractor.

3. All evaluation criteria must be held by the Offeror (i.e., the Joint Venture itself or Prime contractor).

4. Failure to provide the Government with the requested documentation establishing the CTA relationship shall result in the Offer being non-conforming to the Solicitation and rejected

f. OPM Cyber Language for IT Acquisitions Offerors must review and submit the Software Provider Attestation form provided in the OPM Cyber Language for IT Acquisitions document (Attachment 14)

g. Any proposed terms, conditions, or assumptions

Any proposed terms, conditions, or assumptions upon which the proposal is predicated, price, technical, or otherwise must be submitted in this volume. Offerors are hereby advised that any Offeror-imposed terms and conditions and/or assumptions which deviate from the Government’s material terms and conditions established by the Solicitation, may render the Offeror’s proposal Unacceptable, and thus ineligible for award.

6. VOLUME 2: PHASE I

To be eligible for award, the Offeror shall adhere to the directions and submit the following information under Volume 2 – Factor 1 Corporate Experience and Factor 2 Past Performance.

This Volume allows for the submission of any documents required by the RFP, but which have not been covered in another volume. The Phase I proposal volume should be specific and complete. Legibility, clarity, and coherence are very important. Describe, as specifically as possible, the offeror’s ability to accomplish/satisfy the factors, as well as relevant corporate information and experience. Address your capability and describe your experience for meeting or exceeding the Government’s minimum performance or capability requirements of the factors. All the requirements specified in the solicitation are mandatory. Do not merely reiterate the objectives or reformulate the requirements specified in the RFP. Your responses will be reviewed against the factors below. Offerors must adhere to the maximum page limit identified in the table above. The pages allotted can be used at the Offerors’ discretion.

Factor 1: Corporate Capability and Experience Offeror’s must submit clear convincing evidence of corporate capability and experience. This section must describe the following:

The offeror must describe the corporate capability and experience of the prime contractor, subcontractors and Government partners supporting successful enterprise cloud solution implementation, including cybersecurity and privacy functions. The offeror must show its ability to independently (i.e. at the vendors risk) develop cloud-based solutions that are horizontal and vertical (scalable) and have been purchased by the government.

The offeror must clearly describe its corporate capability and experience to attract and retain the skill sets that are required to ensure successful performance of the requirements set forth in the SOW. The offeror must also describe the roles and responsibilities of proposed subcontractors/team members and collaborative efforts that will be used to attract and retain the required skill sets.

The offeror must describe its ability to implement an integrated call center and train personnel to support end user needs.

Factor 2: Past Performance The Offeror shall provide a detailed description of each effort, the services and support provided, an explanation of why the experience is relevant in demonstrating the Offeror’s capabilities for fulfilling the objectives stated in this RFP, and the dates of engagement (period of performance). The Offeror shall provide the Contract Type (Firm Fixed Price, Time & Materials; Cost Reimbursable, Cost-plus award fee, definitive contract, task order, etc.) and estimated contract value for each engagement. In addition, the Offeror shall describe the past performance and explain why the engagement was successful.

Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) and Past Performance Narratives (PPNs) Offerors are allowed to submit a maximum of three (3) recent and relevant contracts to address the criteria of the past performance factor. The Government defines recent contracts to be any contract that is ongoing or completed within the past five (5) years from the date of issuance of this RFP.

Offerors must submit a PPQ (Attachment 6) and provide a PPN that corresponds with the PPQ for each contract reference used to demonstrate its past performance, which equates to a maximum of three (3) PPQs that are allowed to be submitted for each of the three (3) PPNs. Offerors shall follow the submission instructions provided in the PPQ template (Attachment 6). The PPNs shall describe the Offeror’s past performance that supports the criteria identified for factor 2. The contract references used to address the criteria for the factor shall be submitted in numerical order, ex. PPN one (1) through three (3). When starting a new PPN, include the PPN number, project title, contract/project number (or equivalent) and period of performance at the beginning of the narrative. For example: PPN 1; XYZ System; Contract Number; 1 Oct 2015 -30 Sep 2017. Each PPN shall only address one (1) contract reference. The PPN section shall not exceed the maximum limit identified in the table above. The pages allotted can be used at the Offerors discretion.

7. VOLUME 3: PHASE II

To be eligible for award, the Offeror shall adhere to the directions and submit the following information under Volume 2 – Factor 3 Technical Solution and Factor 4 Management Approach.

This Volume allows for the submission of any documents required by the solicitation, but which has not been covered in another volume. Phase II proposal volume should be specific and complete. Legibility, clarity, and coherence are very important. Provide as specifically as possible your technical and management approach to accomplish/satisfy the factors/sub-factors. Address your capability and describe your technical and management approach for meeting or exceeding the Government’s minimum performance or capability requirements of the factors/sub-factors. All the requirements specified in the solicitation are mandatory. Do not merely reiterate the objectives or reformulate the requirements specified in the solicitation. Your responses will be reviewed against the factors below. Offerors must adhere to the maximum page limit identified in the table above. The pages allotted can be used at the Offerors discretion.

Factor 3: Technical Solution Sub-Factor 1: PSHBS Development The offeror must describe its understanding of the PWS requirements (Attachment 4) for the PSHBS by proposing a technical approach and solution that includes at a minimum, the ability to deliver both the Minimum Viable Product (MVP) and the PSHBS within the government’s timeframe. The offeror must also fully describe its proposed utilization of innovative and integrative technologies/solutions to deliver the PSHBS, including any risks or challenges associated with the proposed technical solution and the program timeline as defined in the PWS.

Sub-Factor 2: Requirements Traceability Matrix (RTM) Offerors shall use the instructions provided in the RTM (Attachment 5) The offeror must complete the RTM in accordance with the instructions in that document. The offeror must demonstrate the ability to successfully achieve the requirements listed in both the PWS and the RTM. The offeror’s response will enable OPM to evaluate the completeness of the offeror’s as compared to the specified PSHBS requirements.

Factor 4: Management Approach Offeror’s must clearly describe its approach to successfully manage the initial task order award. This section must describe the following:

Proposed Team Solution The offeror must demonstrate the ability to provide adequate staffing and to ensure successful team performance. The offeror must provide their management approach, including the structure of their team solution. In particular, the offeror must outline an operating model and a staffing approach that will lead to the successful delivery of a system that is the size and complexity of PSHBS. The offeror must also demonstrate the ability to properly staff the contract in a tight IT labor market should vacancies occur during the project’s implementation.

Key Personnel The offeror must provide resumes for key personnel identified in the PWS. The offeror must demonstrate the ability to provide key personnel candidates, along with their demonstrated qualifications, knowledge, and experience. The offeror must also describe how their team member qualifications correspond to the skillsets necessary to implement similar technology solutions as the PSHBS.

Subcontracting Plan Each Prime Offeror who is other than a small business concern must submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan in accordance with FAR 52.219-9. The plan shall identify each proposed small business; the nature of the services to be subcontracted; and state separately the total dollars and percentages that will be subcontracted to any of the small business categories. A Subcontracting Plan Template (Attachment 12) has been provided as a guide and may be modified as needed. It is not intended to replace any existing corporate plan which is more extensive. The Offeror’s Small Business Subcontracting Plan must be approved by the Contracting Officer prior to award.

Offerors which are small business concerns shall submit a one-page letter attesting to its firm’s small business size status.

The Small Business Administration (SBA) established minimum required subcontracting Small Business Goals for this requirement as identified below:

The Offeror shall state how it will meet these goals, or if unable to meet any goal, describe why you are unable to meet any goal(s) and how you will work towards meeting them.

The Small Business goals apply to the total percentage of the subcontracted dollar value; not the total dollars of the contract value. (Example: Total contract dollars is $200 and the Subcontracted Dollars is $100 – the Goals apply to $100 vs the total contract dollars of $200.)

For purposes of this section, the Government considers the prime offeror and any subcontractors as a single entity.

8. VOLUME 4: FACTOR 5: PRICE

To be eligible for award, the Offeror shall adhere to the directions and submit the following information under Price.

This Volume allows for the submission of any documents required by the solicitation, but which has not been covered in another volume. Information submitted in Volume 4 will be reviewed as provided in the instructions for offerors.

Offerors shall provide pricing utilizing the Microsoft Excel Spreadsheet (Attachment 3, entitled, “Pricing Workbook”). To complete the pricing workbook, offerors shall follow the instructions provided in the pricing workbook.

9. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

General. The Government intends to competitively award, a single Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract, utilizing the process of evaluation process and criteria described herein. This source selection will be conducted in accordance with FAR Part 12.6, in conjunction with FAR Part 15, as supplemented with additional information included in this notice.

The Government seeks to award an IDIQ contract to the offeror whose proposal is determined to offer the best value to the Government consistent with FAR 15.101, Trade off, and the process of evaluation and evaluation criteria set forth herein. Additionally, contract award will only be made to an Offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR Part 9 and whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, and certifications) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors, to represent the best value to the Government. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

Discussions. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions. To prepare for that possibility, each initial proposal should contain the offeror’s complete proposal and the best terms. If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions (IAW FAR 15.306(d)), offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. If the offeror’s proposal has been determined to be acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the FPR are subject to evaluation and may increase the risk that the offeror’s proposal be determined to be unacceptable and thus, ineligible for award. Exchanges with offerors conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions.

If a competitive range is established, discussions will ONLY be conducted with those offerors who are determined to be acceptable for Phase 1 (see evaluation process).

10. EVALUATION PROCESS

The government anticipates awarding to the Offeror whose proposal is the most advantageous to the government, price and other non-price factors considered. Technical proposals will be evaluated based on the factors described below. Price proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the considerations below. Technical merit is more important than price. Award may be made to other than the lowest priced technically acceptable proposal. The Government will make an award determination based on the evaluation process, Phases, Factors and Sub-Factors identified below:

a. Non-Price Factors Phase I Factor 1: Corporate Capability and Experience Factor 2: Past Performance

Firm Down-Select

Phase 2 Factor 3: Technical Solution (Subfactors are listed in descending order of importance) Sub-Factor 1: PSHBS Development Sub-Factor 2: Requirements Traceability Matrix (RTM)

Factor 4: Management Approach

Factor 5: Price

11. ORDER OF IMPORTANCE

There are four non-price factors listed and numbered in descending order of importance. For Phase I, Factors 1 and 2 are of equal importance.

For Phase II, Factors 3 and 4 are more important than Factors 1 and 2. Factor 3 is the most important Factor and is more important than Factor 4. For Factor 3, Sub-Factor 1 is more important than Sub-Factor 2. Non-price Factors and Sub-Factors, when combined, are significantly more important than Factor 5. However, as proposals become technically equal, price will be of greater importance.

12. FIRM DOWNSELECT

The Government will use a firm down select evaluation between Phases I and II. When utilizing a firm down select only proposals that are technically acceptable in Phase I will move forward to be evaluated in Phase II. Therefore, all proposal that are NOT technically acceptable will not receive an evaluation of the complete proposal.

In Phase I, the Government will perform an evaluation of each offeror’s proposal based on Factor 1, Corporate Capability and Experience and will be rated as Acceptable or Unacceptable and Factor 2, Past Performance, will be assigned a Confidence Assessment Rating. Any offeror's proposal that receives an Unacceptable rating for Factor 1 or a Limited or No Confidence rating for Factor 2 will be deemed ineligible for contract award and will not move forward to be evaluated for Phase II.

In Phase II, the Government will perform an evaluation of each offeror’s proposal that met the criteria of Phase I. The Government will perform an evaluation of each offeror’s proposal based on Factors 3 and 4 and all sub-factors. All factors/sub-factors, with the exception of the subcontracting plan, will receive a technical rating of either Unacceptable, Acceptable, or Exceptional. The subcontracting plan will be rated on a Pass/Fail basis. Subfactor ratings will NOT be rolled up to the factor level. Any offeror with a technical rating of Unacceptable for any factor/subfactor will be ineligible for contract award.

Once the government has evaluated all proposals that moved to Phase II, Factor 5 will be evaluated.

Contract award will be based on the proposal that offers the best value to the Government consistent with FAR 15.101, Trade off using the evaluation criteria set forth herein. To be considered for a contract award, the offeror must receive a rating of Acceptable for Factor 1 AND a confidence rating of either Substantial, Satisfactory or Neutral for Factor 2. Then, the offeror must receive a rating of either Acceptable or Exceptional for factor 3 subfactors, factor 4 requirements and a rating of Pass for the subcontracting plan. Lastly, the offeror’s price must be deemed fair and reasonable for Factor 5.

13. EVALUATION OF FACTORS and SUB-FACTORS/CRITERIA FOR AWARD

Factor 1: Corporate Capability and Experience

The Government will evaluate the offerors corporate capability and experience and assign a rating based on the following:

The Government will evaluate any corporate-level information the offeror provides that relates to the offeror’s ability to deliver cloud-based solutions. In particular, the Government will evaluate the corporate capability and experience of the prime contractor, subcontractors and Government partners that demonstrates the ability to successfully implement enterprise cloud solutions, including cybersecurity and privacy functions, for similar projects of the same size, complexity, and scope of the PSHBS. The Government will also evaluate the offeror’s experience to independently (i.e. at the vendors risk) develop cloud-based solutions that are horizontal and vertical (scalable) and have been purchased by the government.

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s ability to attract and retain the skill sets that are required to ensure successful performance of the requirements set forth in the SOW. The Government will also evaluate how clearly the offerors demonstrates the roles and responsibilities of proposed subcontractors/team members and collaborative efforts that will be used to attract and retain the required skill sets.

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s ability to implement an integrated call center, to include staffing, and train personnel to support end user needs.

Factor 1 Factor Ratings

Factor 2: Past Performance The Government will evaluate the offerors past performance and assign a rating based on the following:

The government will evaluate the information provided to determine the extent to which the Offeror has demonstrated experience which is recent and relevant to the objectives and requirements in this RFP, increasing the potential to successfully fulfill the objectives of the program.

The Government will evaluate a maximum of 3 recent Past Performance Narratives/Questionnaires (PPNs/PPQs) for projects of the same or similar size, complexity, and scope as the PSHBS for relevancy to determine an overall confidence assessment rating for the factor. The Government will evaluate PPNs/PPQs holistically. For example, if an Offeror submits two (2) PPNs/PPQs, the Government will assign a relevancy rating based on the evaluation of both PPQs/PPNs and will not assign a relevancy rating for each. Similarly, if only one (1) PPQ/PPN is submitted, the Government will assign a relevancy rating based on that single submission.

Recency: The Government defines recent contracts to be any contract that is ongoing or completed within the past five (5) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. ANY PPNs/PPQs referencing contracts that do not fit this definition of recency will be removed from consideration and will not be evaluated for relevancy.

Relevancy: The Government will evaluate all recent PPNs/PPQs to determine the relevancy of the Offeror’s past performance contract reference as defined in the Table below:

Past Performance Relevancy Rating

Relevant To receive a RELEVANT, all PPQs/PPNs must have holistically demonstrated relevant past performance. Relevant past performance is defined as projects that are of similar in size, complexity, and scope as the PSHBS.

Note: The Government may give more weight to past performance information that is considered more relevant and/or more current. In cases where a contractor lacks relevant past performance history or in which information on past performance is not available, the contractor will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. The neutral rating provided to these contractors is at the Contracting Officer's discretion. Prior to assigning a "neutral" past performance rating, the Contracting Officer may consider a broad range of information related to a contractor’s past performance.

The Government reserves the right to review additional past performance information collected, to include Contractor Performance Assessment Reports (CPARs) or State-based equivalent, to determine the overall quality of the Offeror’s past performance. PPQs/PPNs will be evaluated holistically.

The Government will assign an overall past performance confidence assessment rating in accordance with the criteria set forth in the Table below. This rating reflects the Government’s confidence in the offeror’s ability to successfully perform the Government’s requirements.

Overall Past Performance Confidence Rating

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.

To receive a SUBSTANTIAL CONFIDENCE rating, an offeror’s past performance must be RECENT and VERY RELEVANT.

To receive a SATISFACTORY CONFIDENCE rating, an offeror’s past performance must be RECENT and RELEVANT.

To receive a LIMITED CONFIDENCE rating, an Offeror’s past performance must be RECENT and SOMEWHAT RELEVANT.

To receive a NO CONFIDENCE rating, an Offer’s past performance was considered RECENT and NOT RELEVANT.

Factor 3: Technical Solution The Government will evaluate the offerors technical solution and assign a rating based on the following:

Sub-Factor 1: PSHBS Development The Government will evaluate the offeror’s ability to demonstrate its understanding of the PWS requirements (Attachment 4) for the PSHBS. Specifically, the Government will evaluate the offeror’s technical solution that includes at a minimum the ability to deliver the Minimal Viable Product (MVP) within the government’s timeframe. The Government will also evaluate the offeror’s proposed innovative and integrative solutions for developing the PSHBS and proposed schedule for delivering the PSHBS and the risks, documentation, and challenges associated with the proposed technical solution.

Sub-Factor 2: Requirements Traceability Matrix (RTM) The Government will evaluate the offeror’s RTM to determine if the proposal demonstrates the ability to successfully achieve the PWS requirements.