273FCC20R0002 - App Dev - Evaluation Criteria.Amendment A01docx.pdf

Federal Communications Commission

Application Development Support Services Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ)

Evaluation Criteria and Basis for Award

May 21, 2020

Prepared By:

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Information Technology Center (ITC) 445 12th Street SW Washington, DC 20554

RFP 273FCC20R0002

Application Development Support IDIQ

SECTION M EVALUATION CRITERIA AND BASIS FOR AWARD

M.1 OBJECTIVES

The overall objective of the evaluation is for the Government to ascertain the extent to which it can receive from the Offeror timely, high quality, consistently reliable and successful work as set forth in the PWS. Therefore, Offerors should ensure that their initial proposal constitutes their best proposal in terms of both price and the technical solution being proposed.

M.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA

The Government will award a multiple award Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible Offerors whose proposals conform to the solicitation and will be most advantageous to the Government, considering the price and non-price evaluation factors stated in this solicitation.

The proposals that offer the best value are the proposals that, in the Government's estimation, provide the greatest overall benefit to the Government in response to the requirement. In making this determination, the Government is more concerned with obtaining superior technical/management capabilities than with making a source selection at the lowest price.

However, the Government reserves the right to place the award with an Offeror whose proposal offers other than the lowest price or whose proposal does not offer the most superior non-price attributes, where doing so achieves the greatest overall benefit for the Government. In determining which proposal offers the best value, the Government may make tradeoffs between prices and non-price proposal attributes (including past performance). The Government will consider the price and non-price factor attributes of each proposal and will compare their assessed strengths and weaknesses. As the evaluation of non-price factors among the proposals near equality, price will become more important to the Government. The Government will make the source selection decision based upon a review of the written proposals plus analysis of independently obtained past performance information by Government representatives. The Government reserves the right in its sole discretion not to award any contract at all, depending on the quality of the proposals, the availability of funding, program risks, and the continued existence of the requirement and other Government needs.

Offerors that do not demonstrate that they meet the requirements (as discussed in section L – Instructions to Offeror of the RFP) in their initial submissions may be deemed unacceptable and removed from the competition.

In addition, any proposal that fails to provide all information required by this RFP may not be further considered, especially if the CO determines that substantial revisions to the Offeror’s proposal would be required to permit evaluation, or if the incomplete proposal appears to be due to a lack of diligence or competence of the Offeror. Offerors whose proposals simply claim compliance with requirements (e.g., contain statements that merely repeat the requirements of the PWS or agree to comply with those requirements), without explanation of how they will be performed, may be regarded as showing a lack of comprehension of the Government’s requirement and may be removed from the competition. In any event, such an approach will likely result negatively in the proposal evaluation.

M.3 EVALUATION FACTORS

The Government will evaluate offers in two (2) phases. The purpose of this procedure is to reduce the time and cost of source selection, both for the Government and for the competing Offerors. The Government will evaluate proposals that pass Phase One against the evaluation factors listed below. The evaluation factors are as follows:

PHASE ONE

PHASE TWO

Management Approach Technical Approach

Past Performance Price

Price

The evaluation factors for this solicitation are included below in descending order of importance:

Factor 1: Technical Approach Factor 2: Management Approach Factor 3: Past Performance Factor 4: Price

The order of importance among the factors are as follows: Factor 1: Technical Approach is more important than Factor 2: Management Approach. Factor 2: Management Approach is more important than Factor 3: Past Performance. Factors 1, 2, and 3, when combined are significantly more important than Factor 4: Price.

Technical proposals will be rated using adjectival rating schemes, for Factors 1, 2, and 3.

While Factor 4: Price will be evaluated, it will not be rated.

The factors will be defined in accordance with Sections M3.1 through M3. 4. The Government will not “roll up” factor adjectival ratings into an overall non-price proposal adjectival rating.

Each factor described below will be principally evaluated by reference to proposal volumes, parts, sections, tabs, and elements chiefly identified or associated with the factor addressing those topics.

Offerors who do not demonstrate that they meet the Certification and Representation requirements expressed in the PWS will not be eligible for award. The Government will verify the Offeror’s certifications and representations are current and in good standing.

M.3.1 Factor 1 – Technical Approach

The Government will evaluate how efficiently and effectively the Offeror’s technical methods address the requirements.

Each Offeror shall be evaluated on its demonstrated understanding and knowledge of any technical requirements for the following required program task areas:

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal to determine the extent to which the proposed technical approach demonstrates a clear understanding of all requirements.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal to determine the extent to which its proposed models/processes/tools are likely to be successful in gaining efficiencies and/or process improvements (including) performance metrics/measures.

The Offeror’s proposal will also be evaluated on its understanding of risks inherent and associated with its proposed approach.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s insight into, and ability to explain and anticipate, potential program challenge areas of the task order; major difficulties, problem areas, and risks;

the application of creative and feasible solutions; future integration of new processes; and technology enhancements.

The Government will evaluate the degree to which the Offeror’s proposal demonstrates an understanding of program logistics and schedule.

M.3.2 Factor 2 – Management Approach

The Government will evaluate the quality of the Offeror’s proposed management approach for meeting the Government’s requirements.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s key personnel to ensure they meet the education and experience requirements outlined. The Offeror will be evaluated on its designation of Key Personnel positions relative to its approach to the management and execution of the work.

The Government will evaluate the quality of the Offeror’s proposed approach to staffing, retention, and recruiting/screening policies.

The Government will evaluate the quality of the Offeror’s staff management approach and Staffing Plan, including the credibility and resilience of the approach and plan for ensuring the Government receives well-qualified Offeror personnel who are engaged to perform throughout the term of the IDIQ contract. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s allocation of personnel and resources.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach in meeting the management requirements for tracking contract performance and ensuring customer satisfaction under the IDIQ contract to determine how likely the proposed approach will meet the performance standards and deliverables.

The Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated on:

• The proposed approach to managing the magnitude and complexity of work detailed in the PWS.

• The proposed management structure for performing all tasks required in the PWS.

• The Offeror’s approach to the management of teaming partners and subcontractors.

• The Offeror’s approach for utilization of Government-furnished equipment, information, and property

• The proposed approach to provide a fully qualified work force at task order award(s).

• The demonstrated ability to recruit, train, and retain sufficient numbers of personnel with required skill sets and security clearances.

• The thoroughness of its approach in addressing the planning, execution and risk management of transition issues.

M.3.3 Factor 3 – Past Performance

All past performance projects shall have been performed within the last five (5) years of the proposal submission due date. While the Government will consider past performance experience submitted by Offeror on non-Federal Government projects (State or local Government projects, commercial projects, not-for-profit projects), Federal Government projects on efforts of similar or more extensive size, scope, and complexity, concerning subject matters that are specified within the PWS are preferred.

The Government will consider the relevancy of the project on efforts of similar or greater size, scope, and complexity concerning subject matters that are specified within the PWS. The projects that will be considered should be similar in scope, magnitude, and complexity to the Application Development effort as described in the PWS and have combine value of equal or greater than $10 million.

Offerors may use a subcontractor’s past performance, but at least two (2) past performance references and questionnaires must be from contracts where the Offeror served as the Prime Contractor.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) under this factor. Generally, the Government will consider the degree to which the past performance demonstrates the likelihood of successful performance in delivering high quality service and solutions responding to this requirement.

In evaluating Past Performance, the Government will consider responses to the questionnaires concerning:

• technical performance (including quality of product or service),

• schedule and timeliness of performance

• business relations (including customer satisfaction)

• cost controls (as further described in the questionnaires).

The Government may also consider past performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel, other corporate entities or subcontractors where such information is relevant to this acquisition, whether or not it is contained in the Offeror’s proposal.

In a case where the Offeror indicates it is without recent and relevant past performance, or the Government determines that the submitted examples of past performance are not recent and relevant, the Offeror will receive a neutral rating (neither a favorable nor an unfavorable rating).

Offerors that fail to have one or more questionnaires submitted by the closing time will be evaluated based on those questionnaires that are timely submitted (and such other information as the Government may employ). The timely submission of fewer than three questionnaires is very likely to lead to a less favorable rating.

In addition to evaluating the past performance references submitted by the Offeror, the Government may use information obtained from sources other than the Offeror’s references and information contained in their proposals (including completed questionnaires), to include, among other sources, current information from Government-wide past performance databases (e.g., Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS)) and industry reporting sources.

M.3.4 Factor 4 - Price

The Government will evaluate the information submitted in each Offeror’s price proposal. The Government will review price proposals for completeness, arithmetic accuracy, and balance (considering the price escalation for option periods). Price will be evaluated but not rated.

In Phase One, the Government will evaluate offerors price proposal to determine whether the evaluated price is fair and reasonable. In reaching such determination, the Government may consider the reasonableness of proposed labor rates and unit prices, considering the estimated significance of the impact of such labor rates and prices on the overall price to be paid by the Government over the course of the contract.

The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are mathematically and materially unbalanced. The Offeror’s total price for the purpose of evaluation will include the base period, all options periods, and the evaluation of FAR 52.217-8 Option to Extend Services. The Government will calculate and evaluate the price for the option covered under FAR 52.217-8 by utilizing the pricing of the last option period for six months of continued performance. The Offeror is not required to provide pricing for this calculation. The evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

In accordance with FAR 52.217-8, the Government may require continued performance of services within the limits and rates specified in the contract. The rates shall be determined to be the unit price of each applicable CLIN as stated in Section B of the award of the CLIN which corresponds with the most recently entered period of performance. As indicated in FAR 52.217- 8, the government will have the option provision to extend the performance of the contract up to an additional six (6) months when the contract is provided written notice.

Failure to submit offers for all line items listed in the Pricing Sheet will result in rejection of the offer.

M.4 DOWN SELECT PHASES

The Government will execute the evaluation in the following phases:

Phase 1. The Government will consider all offers using the following evaluation factors:

Factor 2 (Management Approach), Factor 3 (Past Performance) and Factor 4 (Price).

Those offers determined to be the most highly rated considering Factor 2 (Management), and Factor 3 (Past Performance), and whose proposed price (Factor 4) is considered to be fair and reasonable will proceed to Phase 2 for further consideration.

Phase 2. The Government will consider offers selected to proceed to Phase 2 by evaluating Factor 1 (Technical Approach) and Factor 4 (Price). The Government intends to select for award of the IDIQ contract those offers most likely to provide a best value solution based on a trade-off between Factor 1 and Factor 4.

The decision to eliminate any offeror through this procedure will not constitute the establishment of a competitive range, as described in FAR 15.306(c), and it will not obligate the Government to conduct discussions or to solicit or entertain proposal revisions. However, the Government reserves the right to establish a competitive range and conduct discussions if it is decided that it is in the best interest of the Government to do so.

M.5 COMPETITIVE RANGE DETERMINATION

In the event the Government determines discussions are necessary prior to contract award, the Government will make a competitive range determination in accordance with FAR 15.306(c), based on an initial evaluation of all proposals. The competitive range would include only those proposals most highly rated after initial evaluation. If the contracting officer determines that the number of most highly rated proposals that might otherwise be included in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, for purposes of efficiency the contracting officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition. The Government will base the initial evaluation of proposals and the initial determination of the competitive range upon a review of the written proposals and consider any information exchanged during communications as defined in FAR 15.306(b). The Government will discontinue evaluation of any proposal that is not included in the competitive range after initial evaluations. The Contracting Officer will promptly notify Offerors of any decision to exclude them from the competitive range, whereupon they may request and receive a debriefing in accordance with FAR 15.505.

M.6 DISCUSSIONS

If the Contracting Officer determines discussions to be necessary, the Government will enter into discussions with all Offerors included in the competitive range. The intent of these discussions would be to maximize the Government’s ability to obtain the best value based upon the solicitation requirements and the evaluation factors set forth below. If discussions are needed, they will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.306(d). The scope and extent of the discussions will be at the discretion of the Contracting Officer, and the Contracting Officer will tailor discussions to each Offerors’ proposal. The Government may eliminate an Offeror from the competitive range at any point during discussions, whether or not all material aspects of the proposal have been discussed, if the Offeror is no longer considered to be one the most highly rated offerors. When the Government concludes discussions, it will give all Offerors within the competitive range the opportunity to submit a final proposal revision by the date and time identified by the Contracting Officer.

M.7 BASIS FOR AWARD

In determining the award of the IDIQ, the Government intends to make multiple IDIQ contract awards to the responsible businesses whose proposals represent the best value to the Government, considering price and other evaluation factors, and their relative importance, as stated in this solicitation. In making this determination, the Government is more concerned with obtaining superior technical and management capabilities than selecting the Offerors with the lowest price. However, this process allows for a tradeoff between price and non-price factors and allows the Government to award IDIQ contracts to the Offerors that submit other than the lowest priced proposal or other than the highest technically rated proposal if the selected Offerors’ proposals represent the overall best value to the Government. Receiving a less than a satisfactory rating in any single factor will result in the overall proposal being determined not acceptable and therefore ineligible for award.

Task Orders will be awarded to the offerors among the IDIQ contract awardees that provide the overall best value to the government. The government will follow the same procedures for each Task Order award as is outlined in the previous paragraph for the IDIQ contract awards.

The Government may reject any or all submissions if such action is in the public interest.

Offerors that are not selected for award of the IDIQ contract will be notified of the award decision in accordance with FAR 15.503(b). Debriefings will be provided under this solicitation.

Debriefing(s) may be given to the awardee(s) and unsuccessful Offeror(s) after a written request has been made by the Offeror to the CO. All requests shall be made electronically to Joyce.Terry-Butler@fcc.gov within three (3) business days after the date the Offeror receives the IDIQ award notification.

When the Offerors are selected for IDIQ award, the IDIQ Ordering Guide and all other associated attachments will be issued shortly thereafter. The Government will require written acceptance from each successful awardee of the IDIQ contract.

M.8 EVALUATION FACTOR DEFINITIONS AND RATINGS

For evaluation of Factors 1, and 2, the following definitions apply:

Table 1 – Evaluation Definitions

Evaluation Definitions

Significant Strength

A strength that appreciably enhances the merit of a proposal or appreciably increases the probability of successful contract performance.

Strength An aspect of a proposal that, when judged against a stated evaluation criterion, enhances the merit of the proposal or increases the probability of successful contract performance.

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

Significant Weakness

A flaw in a proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Deficiency

A material failure of a proposal to meet a requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses that increase the likelihood of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level. A proposal that receives a deficiency will not be eligible for award.

All non-price factors, except Past Performance, shall be rated as follows:

Table 2 – Rating Definitions

RATING DEFINITIONS

Superior Offer fully addresses all aspects of the evaluation factor, convincingly demonstrates that it will exceed the Government’s performance requirements, and contains no weaknesses, significant weaknesses or deficiencies.

Good Offer fully addresses all aspects of the evaluation factor, convincingly demonstrates a likelihood of meeting the Government’s requirements, demonstrates no more than two (2) weaknesses, and contains no significant weaknesses or deficiencies.

Satisfactory Offer addresses all aspects of the evaluation factor and demonstrates the ability to meet the Government’s performance requirements. The Offer may contain no more than three (3) weaknesses and no more than one (1) significant weaknesses and contains no deficiencies.

Unsatisfactory Offer fails to address all aspects of the evaluation factor and the information presented indicates a strong likelihood of failure to meet the Government’s requirements. Offer contains more than three (3) weaknesses, or more than one (1) significant weaknesses, or at least one deficiency. An offer that receives a rating of “Unsatisfactory” under any evaluation factor is ineligible for award.

The Government’s evaluation of Past Performance will include an assessment of the offeror’s breadth, depth, level and relevance of past experience on projects similar in size, scope and complexity to this requirement performed within the past five years.

Table 3 - Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Rating Definition Description

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

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

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

The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the offeror performed on the examples of recent and relevant contract past performance provided by the offeror. The past performance evaluation performed in support of a current source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the offeror performed those past contracts.

Table 4 - Past Performance Confidence Assessments

Rating Definition Description

Substantial Confidence

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence

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

No Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort. A proposal that receives an assessment of “No Confidence” is ineligible to receive an award.

Unknown Confidence

(Neutral)

No recent/relevant performance record is available, or the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. This is neither a negative nor positive assessment.

M.9 FAR 52.217-5 EVALUATION OF OPTIONS (JULY 1990)

Except when it is determined in accordance with FAR 17.206(b) not to be in the Government’s best interests, the Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. Evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the options(s).