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

AMENDMENT 2

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 preparing and submitting its 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

· 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-compliant 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. 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 no smaller than 8-point font.

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. Tables and illustrations may be landscape.

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

5. Page limits must 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.

6. 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:

The following attachments/documents are not required to be submitted with proposals and have been provided solely for the Offerors review and understanding of the Government’s requirement:

Attachments 2, 4, 8 and 13.

GENERAL PROPOSAL DOCUMENTATION

PHASE I

PHASE II

3. PROPOSAL COMPLIANCE REVIEW

The Government will validate that an offeror’s proposal fully meets all the submission 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-compliant and removed from evaluation and ineligible for award.

Only proposals that fully meet and respond to the requirements outlined in the RFP and all associated attachments will be considered compliant and receive further consideration and evaluation.

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 using the proposed labor rates for the Base IDIQ.

4. VOLUME 1: GENERAL PROPOSAL DOCUMENTS

This Volume allows for the submission of any documents required by the RFP that have 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) The Offeror must complete all applicable sections of the SF 1449. All information provided in the form must be in the name of the Prime/proposing Offeror and match the information in Sam.gov.

b. Proposal Checklist (Attachment 11) The Offeror shall provide answers to 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. OPM Cyber Language for IT Acquisitions (Attachment 13) The OPM Cyber Language for IT Acquisitions document, is provided for Offerors to review. Since the software will be new to the OPM environment, OPM will require the selected vendor to provide the attestation form within 6 months of award.

e. Any proposed terms, conditions, or assumptions Any proposed terms, conditions, or assumptions upon which the proposal is predicated, including 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.

5. 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 Capability and 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 corporate capability and experience, as well as relevant past performance. In particular, the government is interested in capabilities and experience that demonstrate the offeror can implement a system of similar size, scope, and complexity. All the requirements specified in the solicitation are mandatory. Do not merely reiterate the objectives or reformulate the requirements specified in the RFP. Offeror responses will be reviewed against the factors below. Offerors must adhere to the maximum page limit identified in the Proposal Format table above. The pages allotted can be used at the Offerors’ discretion.

Factor 1: Corporate Capability and Experience Offerors must submit clear, convincing evidence of corporate capability and experience. In this section, the offeror must describe the following:

· The offeror must describe relevant corporate capability and experience of the prime contractor, subcontractors and Government partners supporting successful enterprise cloud solution implementation, including cybersecurity and privacy functions, for system(s) of similar size, scope, and complexity as PSHBS. Offerors should use the requirements in section 4.1 of the SOW to address these criteria.

· The offeror must show its ability to independently (e.g., at the vendor’s risk) develop cloud-based solutions that are horizontal and vertical (scalable) and have been purchased by the government. Offerors should use the requirements in section 4.2 of the SOW to address these criteria.

· The offeror must clearly describe, at a high level, its ability 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 customer support center to support end user needs. Offerors should use the requirements in section 4.3 of the SOW to address these criteria.

Factor 2: Past Performance The Offeror must submit clear, convincing evidence of past performance. In this section, the offeror must provide, at a minimum, the following:

· 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)

· Contract Type

· Estimated value for each engagement

· Description of past performance and why the engagement was successful

Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) and Past Performance Narratives (PPNs)

Offerors are allowed to submit a maximum of five (5) 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.

A maximum of five 5 PPQs/PPNs may be submitted to demonstrate past performance for sections 4.1 and 4.2 of Attachment 2. Separately, two (2) PPQs/PPNs may be submitted to demonstrate past performance for sections 4.3 and 4.4 of the same attachment. At least one PPN and PPQ used to demonstrate past performance must be in the name of the proposing Offeror.

PPNs must correspond with the PPQs that are submitted for each contract reference used to demonstrate its past performance. Offerors shall follow the submission instructions provided in the PPQ template (Attachment 6).

The contract references used to address the criteria for the factor shall be submitted in numerical order, ex. PPN one (1) through five (5). 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 Proposal Format table above. The pages allotted can be used at the Offerors discretion.

6. VOLUME 3: PHASE II

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

This Volume allows for the submission of any documents required by the solicitation, but which have 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 a technical solution and management approach to accomplish/satisfy the factors. All the requirements specified in the solicitation are mandatory. Do not merely reiterate the objectives or reformulate the requirements specified in the solicitation. 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 Offeror’s discretion.

Factor 3: Technical Solution The offeror must describe its understanding of section 2.0 of Attachment 4, the PSHBS PWS, 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.

The offeror must propose a project schedule for delivering and meeting the Government’s requirements within the timeframe identified in the “Definition of Minimum Viable Product (MVP)” Table in the PWS. Additionally, the proposed schedule must identify the deliverable and delivery date and ensure alignment with the delivery of the MVP, as well as the requirements that are not identified in the MVP. The proposed schedule does not count toward the page count identified above for this factor.

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. Offerors should select the dropdown option that most closely resembles the offeror's proposed technical approach/experience. For example, if the offeror has a COTS decision support tool, select “turnkey.” If the offeror proposes developing the tool from scratch, select “custom code.” In the 25-page limit, Offerors must address requirement listed in the RTM at a high-level, focusing on their overall proposed technical approach. It is not required for Offerors to specifically address each item of the RTM. The offeror’s response to the RTM will enable OPM to evaluate the completeness and efficacy of the offeror’s proposed approach.

If applicable, Offerors are allowed to submit a proposed commercial license agreement to support the proposed technical solution. This attachment does not count against the page limit.

Factor 4: Management Approach The offeror must clearly describe its approach to successfully manage the PSHBS Task Order (TO). This section must describe the following:

Proposed Team Solution The offeror must demonstrate the ability to provide adequate staffing 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, scope, 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 project implementation.

Key Personnel The offeror must provide a resume for all key personnel identified in the PWS. The resumes should demonstrate the individual’s ability to perform the functions enumerated in Attachment 4, Section 3.1 of the PSHBS TO PWS.

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 contract value.

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

The subcontracting plan does not count toward the page limit for Factor 4 and must be submitted as a separate document within Volume 3.

7. 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.

The ceiling amount for the IDIQ, including all future task orders, is $175M. Offerors are not required to propose a price for the optional task orders related to the Customer Support Center (CSC) or FEHB Scalability identified in Attachment 2, the PSHBS IDIQ SOW. If executed, those task orders and all other future task orders will be priced at the time the requirement is known.

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.

In addition to Attachment 3, the Pricing Workbook, Offerors must submit a project schedule for delivering and meeting the Government’s requirements within the timeframe identified in the “Definition of Minimum Viable Product (MVP)” Table in the PWS. The schedule must identify the deliverable, delivery date, payment schedule for each deliverable. The payment amounts should equal the total proposed price in the Pricing Workbook for the PSHBS task order.

8. 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).

9. EVALUATION PROCESS

The government anticipates awarding a contract to the Offeror whose proposal represents best value to the government, including price and other non-price factors. Technical proposals will be evaluated based on the factors described below. Price proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the considerations below. Non-priced factors are more important than price. The government may award a contract to an offeror other than the offeror that submitted the lowest-priced, technically acceptable proposal. The Government will make an award determination based on the evaluation process, Phases, and 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

Factor 4: Management Approach

Factor 5: Price

10. 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 more important than Factor 4.

Non-price Factors, when combined, are more important than Factor 5. However, for those proposals deemed technically equal, price will be the determining factor.

11. 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 AND have a substantial, satisfactory, or neutral confidence rating in Phase I will move forward to be evaluated in Phase II. Therefore, all proposals that are deemed NOT technically acceptable OR are given a limited or no confidence rating will not move forward to Phase II.

Phase I is for the evaluation of the IDIQ. In Phase I, the Government will perform an evaluation of each offeror’s proposal based on Factor 1, Corporate Capability and Experience and Factor 2, Past Performance. Factor 1 Corporate Capability and Experience will be rated as Acceptable or Unacceptable. 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.

Phase II is for the evaluation of the PSHBS TO. 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.

· Except for the subcontracting plan, Factors 3 and 4 will receive a technical rating of either Unacceptable, Acceptable, or Exceptional.

· The subcontracting plan will be rated on a Pass/Fail basis.

· Any offeror with a technical rating of Unacceptable for any factor 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 factors 3 and 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.

12. EVALUATION OF FACTORS CRITERIA FOR AWARD

Factor 1: Corporate Capability and Experience The Government will evaluate the offerors corporate capability and experience and assign a rating in accordance with the table below. To be deemed Acceptable, the offeror must:

· Demonstrate experience in 18 or more of the areas in section 4.1 and 26 or more of the areas in section 4.2 of Attachment 2, the PSHBS IDIQ SOW, and

· Demonstrate the ability to meet five (5) or more of the areas listed in section 4.3 of Attachment 2, the PSHBS IDIQ SOW.

In particular, the Government will evaluate any corporate-level information the offeror provides that relates to the offeror’s ability to deliver cloud-based solutions. In addition, 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, at a high level, the offeror’s corporate ability to attract and retain personnel who possess the skill sets that are required to ensure successful performance of the requirements set forth in the SOW.

Factor 1: Corporate Capability and Experience Rating

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

The Government will evaluate a maximum of five (5) recent Past Performance Narratives/Questionnaires (PPNs/PPQs) for contracts/projects of the same or similar size, complexity, and scope as the requirements outlined in sections 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4 of Attachment 2, the PSHBS IDIQ SOW. The Government will evaluate the PPNs/PPQs 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.

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.

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:

Factor 2: 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.

Factor 2: 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 Regarding proposed technical solutions, the government is equally prepared to accept a PSHBS hosted either in its own Azure environment or a certified FedRAMP Moderate “as-a-Service” solution deployed, maintained, and supported by the vendor outside of OPM’s Azure environment. Associated support functions can be proposed either as a managed service or by a proposed staffing model that includes the necessary skills to design, architect, configure, develop, deploy, and operate the proposed solution. The government has no preference and will evaluate all variations proposed and select the solution that provides the best value to the government in accomplishing its objectives for delivering the PSHBS to its customers.

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

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed technical approach as it pertains to section 2.0 of Attachment 4, the PSHBS PWS and the RTM. Specifically, the government will evaluate the vendor’s proposed set of capabilities to determine the amount of development and/or customization required. In addition, the extensibility of the proposed solution is important, meaning the government will evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of integrating multiple capabilities in one seamless solution, focusing on decision support, enrollment, eligibility, premium reconciliation, and payment processing. The government will evaluate the proposal to assess data sharing and integration capabilities, focusing on both the solution’s ability to share data with legacy mainframe systems and the ability to seamlessly and repeatably integrate with application program interfaces in a controlled manner.

The government will evaluate the cybersecurity posture of the proposed solution(s) to assess whether it aligns with Federal cybersecurity standards and to determine the feasibility of efficiently attaining an authority to operate. The government will assess the scalability of the proposed solution, including the solution’s ability to adapt to both a higher and lower volume of users.

The Government will also evaluate the offeror’s technical solution and the proposed project schedule that includes, at a minimum, the ability to deliver the Minimal Viable Product (MVP) and the Postal Services Health Benefit System (PSHBS) within the government’s timeframe included in the “Definition of Minimum Viable Product (MVP)” Table. 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.

After evaluating the narrative, the Government will evaluate RTM responses to determine whether it aligns with the offeror’s proposed technical approach.

Finally, if applicable, the Government will review all proposed commercial license agreements submitted to support the Offeror’s proposed technical solution to determine if the terms and conditions are acceptable to the Government. Any agreement the government determines to not be acceptable for any reason may be rejected and result in the proposed technical solution being deemed Unacceptable and therefore un-awardable.

Factor 4: Management Approach The Government will evaluate the offerors management approach and assign a rating based on the following:

Proposed Team Solution The government will evaluate the offeror’s ability to provide adequate staffing and resources. Specifically, the government will evaluate the offeror’s operating model and staffing approach, including all proposed labor categories, to assess the feasibility and efficacy of the proposed management approach. The government will assess resource levels (e.g., head count by resource type) across each stage of the project. To ensure continuity, the government will also evaluate the offeror’s ability to continuously maintain resource levels in a tight IT labor market, should vacancies occur during the project’s implementation.

Key Personnel The Government will evaluate all Key Personnel resumes to ensure that, at a minimum, the proposed personnel possess the required skills, experience, knowledge, and qualifications as required in Attachment 4, paragraphs 3.0 and 3.1. Specifically, the Government will review the offeror’s Key Personnel resume(s) for those positions identified in the PWS to determine the likelihood of the proposed candidate successfully performing the work and meeting the objectives of the requirement.

Subcontracting Plan Offerors required to submit a Subcontracting Plan will have that plan evaluated on a “Pass or Fail” basis considering, at a minimum, the required socio-economic goals and follows the requirements of FAR 52.219-9 as part of the Contracting Officer’s responsibility determination of a potential awardee. The Small Business goals apply to the total IDIQ contract value.

For factors 3 and 4 only, the Government will assign strengths and weaknesses to Offerors proposal and assign the following ratings accordingly:

Factors 3 and 4 Technical Ratings

Unacceptable (Unawardable) The offeror’s proposal indicates an undesirable technical solution that contains no strengths and more than one weakness.

Term Definitions

Factor 5: Price For evaluation purposes, the Government has provided a maximum number of hours starting in year 2 for the PSHBS and for the CSC and FEHB Scalability tabs in Attachment 3, the pricing workbook of the solicitation. The Government will utilize the pricing workbook to conduct a price analysis for reasonableness and any instances of unbalanced pricing. The Government will also consider the impact on the value of a proposal that exceeds the minimum technical or performance requirements in completing the analysis. Adequate price competition provides an exception to certified cost and pricing data requirements and usually provides fair assessment of reasonableness (FAR 15.305 (a)).

The total evaluated price (TEP) to be used in any tradeoffs or award considerations will be composed of the following: [(MVP Labor + MVP ODCs) + (PSHBS Labor) + (CSC Labor) + (Scalability Labor)]

Reasonableness For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. The Government will determine prices fair and reasonable using one or more of the price analysis techniques at FAR 15.404-1(b)(2).

Page 2 of 2 Amendment 2 Attachment 1