03 Rev Proposal Submittal and Award Evaluation.pdf

Proposal Submittal and Method of Award

1. Proposal SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS

1.1. Offerors shall submit a written Proposal for the implementation of an enterprise-wide marketplace for the management of federal office space. Upon receipt of written proposal submissions, GSA shall evaluate proposals for completeness.

Failure to provide required information may result in the proposal being disqualified and not considered for competition under this RFP. Written proposals shall consist of the following:

1.2. Proposal Submission: Proposals are due no later than Friday, March 7, 2025, at 4:00 PM Central to the following:

General Services Administration Acquisition Management Division Attn: Krystal Blue (krystal.blue@gsa.gov), Joel Doucette (joel.doucette@gsa.gov), Justin Costello (justin.costello@gsa.gov)

Solicitation RFQ: 47PF0025R0022

1.3. Proposals shall be submitted electronically. Offerors shall submit their proposal which includes both the technical and pricing data. The offeror’s proposal package shall be submitted in a manner which should clearly state the RFP number, firm’s name, and address. The proposal must be submitted on company letterhead and signed by a representative authorized to bind the company. In addition, the offeror must submit the requirements as identified under the Evaluation of Award Section of this solicitation.

1.4. In addition to the technical and pricing data, quoters shall include SAM registration verification and acknowledgment of any amendments.

Note: Due to limitations of agency email servers, email submissions may not exceed 25MB. An email submission greater than 25MB that is rejected by GSA servers will be considered undelivered and ineligible for award.

1.5. Please submit pricing information on the attached SF 1449 and the Acquisition Appendix A: Price Proposal as requested. Your firm shall provide a Total Evaluated Price (Base + Options) for services to be provided. Your firm must include cost breakdown in a format of your choosing. The total cost shall be inclusive of all costs associated with completing the scope of work, including travel.

Please submit the names and emails of up to three (3) references who can complete a past performance questionnaire. GSA prefers the references be related to the projects submitted under the Specialized Experience factor. The reference names and emails should be sent to Joel.Doucette@gsa.gov and Krystal.Blue@gsa.gov by Thursday March 6, 2025 at 12:00PM Central.

1.6. Questions Regarding the RFP: Questions regarding this RFP should be submitted in writing to Joel Doucette at joel.doucette@gsa.gov and Krystal Blue at krystal.blue@gsa.gov.

The government will not accept questions after Thursday, March 6, 2025 at 12:00 PM Central.

1.7. This procurement is a Total Small Business Set Aside. Only proposals received from small business contractors will be considered.

1.8. Requirements of Joint Venture Offerors

(1) All offers submitted by joint ventures must include a copy of an executed joint venture agreement (with original signatures) which fully discloses the legal identity of each member of the joint venture, the relationship between the members, the form of ownership of each member, and any limitations on liability or authority for each member.

(2) An authorized representative of each member of the joint venture must sign the SF 1449 accompanying an offer regardless of any agency relationship established between the Members.

(3) In the case of corporations that are joint venture members, the corporation secretary must certify that the corporation is authorized to participate in the joint venture, either by certifying in the joint venture agreement, or by submitting a separate certification to the Government. The joint venture must also provide a certificate that identifies a principal representative of the joint venture with full authority to bind the joint venture.

(4) Representations and certifications, financial information, and past performance information must be submitted for each member of the joint venture.

2. EVALUATION FOR AWARD: Award will be made as a firm fixed price stand alone contract.

The selection of a contractor will be based on a best value trade-off decision following an evaluation of all factors. For this procurement, the technical factors are significantly more important than price.

The evaluation factors are as follows and are more significant in descending order:

1. Product Maturity, Readiness & Compliance

2. Specialized Experience on projects of similar size and scope

3. Project Timeline & Implementation Plan

4. Past Performance

5. FedRAMP, GSA LiSaaS ATO Readiness & Security Compliance

Evaluation of Joint Venture Offerors In the evaluation of responsibility and non-price factors, information submitted for a party to the joint venture will only be evaluated to the extent that the terms of the joint venture agreement do not limit such party's performance or financial obligations as a party to the Contract contemplated by this Solicitation.

2.1. Product Maturity, Readiness and Compliance

Excellent - Full Points The vendor must demonstrate extensive experience in workplace management and real estate optimization for large-scale government or private sector clients, managing over 1 million square feet across 20+ locations. The vendor should showcase a proven ability to implement scalable, high-impact solutions that improve cost efficiency, space utilization, and employee engagement. If the offeror submits as a joint venture, the experience of either firm in the joint venture will be attributed to the joint venture.

The vendor must provide comprehensive data and case studies demonstrating:

Real-time workspace booking with an intuitive user interface.

Policy-Compliant Commercial Providers – A network of policy-compliant commercial providers with existing aggregator services, ensuring seamless access to on-demand workspace options while streamlining procurement.

AI-Driven Portfolio Optimization – An AI-powered portfolio analytics and scenario planning tool leveraging global coworking supply data and behavioral insights to provide data-driven insights and transaction recommendations, optimizing workplace agility.

The vendor has a proven track record in real estate optimization, flexible office space management, and SaaS platform integration. The solution’s effectiveness is validated through live demonstrations, user case studies, and customer testimonials, ensuring immediate usability and measurable impact upon deployment.

Very Good - Partial Points The vendor delivers a mostly developed and functional cloud-based workplace solution that meets most requirements outlined in the scope but may require minor refinements or limited additional development.

The solution has been successfully implemented in federal agencies or large commercial enterprises, but with fewer deployments or limited scalability.

The system provides most core functionalities, including:

Real-time workspace booking, but with minor usability or performance gaps.

Policy-Compliant Commercial Providers, but may lack existing aggregator services or full integration.

AI-Driven Portfolio Optimization, but with limited data integration, reduced automation capabilities, or fewer scenario planning features.

The vendor has a strong record in real estate optimization, flexible office space management, and SaaS platform integration, but the solution requires additional enhancements for full deployment. Effectiveness is demonstrated through some live demonstrations, case studies, or testimonials, but lacks comprehensive validation.

Unsatisfactory - No Points The vendor fails to deliver a functional or ready-to-deploy cloud-based workplace solution or requires significant additional development to meet the scope requirements. The solution lacks operational success and has not been implemented in federal agencies or large commercial enterprises.

The system is missing or incomplete in key functional areas, including:

No or unreliable real-time workspace booking capabilities.

Lack of policy-compliant commercial providers or failure to integrate with an existing aggregator service.

No AI-driven portfolio optimization or an undeveloped, ineffective analytics tool.

The vendor lacks a demonstrated track record in real estate optimization, flexible office space management, or SaaS platform integration. The solution is not validated through live demonstrations, case studies, or customer testimonials, making it unsuitable for deployment.

2.2. Specialized Experience on projects of similar size and scope

The vendor must demonstrate extensive experience in workplace management and real estate optimization for large-scale government or private sector clients, managing over 1 million square feet across 20+ locations. The vendor should showcase a proven ability to implement scalable, high-impact solutions that improve cost efficiency, space utilization, and employee engagement.

The vendor must provide comprehensive data and case studies demonstrating:

Cost Reduction – Documented evidence of significant decreases in real estate and operational expenses over a defined period, backed by financial reports or client testimonials.

Space Utilization Efficiency – Metrics showing optimized occupancy rates and increased use of shared or flexible workspaces, supported by utilization tracking or occupancy analytics.

Improved Collaboration – Measured increases in employee engagement and teamwork effectiveness, validated through employee surveys, productivity metrics, and case studies.

Optimized Real Estate Strategy – Demonstrated reduction of underutilized office space, quantified by square footage reductions, lease consolidations, or cost savings reports.

The vendor has relevant experience but does not fully meet the scale or scope requirements—for example, managing fewer locations, a smaller client base, or more limited experience in real estate optimization. The vendor demonstrates expertise but lacks the breadth, complexity, or measurable success metrics required for full points.

The vendor must provide partial evidence demonstrating:

Cost Reduction – Some proof of real estate or operational savings, though reductions may be smaller in scale or lacking in long-term impact analysis.

Space Utilization Efficiency – Moderate improvements in occupancy rates or workspace flexibility, but without comprehensive tracking or enterprise-wide implementation.

Improved Collaboration – Limited data on employee engagement or teamwork effectiveness, with some anecdotal evidence but fewer measurable improvements.

Optimized Real Estate Strategy – Some reductions in underutilized office space, but on a smaller scale or without a long-term strategic impact.

Workplace Satisfaction – Moderate improvements in employee satisfaction scores, but without robust supporting data or widespread organizational impact.

The vendor lacks relevant past performance or fails to demonstrate experience in large-scale workplace management or real estate optimization. The vendor does not provide sufficient evidence to support claims of effectiveness.

The vendor fails to provide demonstrable outcomes related to:

Cost Reduction – No clear history of reducing real estate or operational expenses.

Space Utilization Efficiency – No evidence of workspace optimization, occupancy rate improvements, or flexible workspace adoption.

Improved Collaboration – No measurable impact on employee engagement, teamwork, or productivity metrics.

Optimized Real Estate Strategy – No history of reducing underutilized office space, lease consolidations, or workplace strategy improvements.

Workplace Satisfaction – No supporting data on employee satisfaction, engagement, or user feedback improvements.

2.3. Project Timeline and Implementation Plan

The vendor must demonstrate a clear, structured, and feasible project plan ensuring full system rollout and operational readiness by March 31, 2025, with:

Defined Milestones – A phased approach outlining key deliverables and deadlines.

Onboarding & Training – A structured plan for user adoption and support.

Scalability – A demonstrated ability to expand to additional locations and users.

The vendor must submit detailed documentation such as a roadmap, work breakdown structure (WBS), or implementation timeline to verify readiness.

The vendor presents a project plan but lacks clarity or detail in key areas:

Milestones are outlined but not well-defined.

Onboarding & training plans are present but lack depth.

Scalability is considered but without a concrete plan.

Timeline feasibility is uncertain, raising concerns about meeting the March 31, 2025, deadline.

The vendor provides some supporting documentation, but it does not fully substantiate readiness.

The vendor fails to present a clear implementation plan or does not demonstrate the ability to meet project deadlines due to:

No structured timeline or milestones.

No onboarding or training strategy.

No scalability considerations.

Unrealistic or missing deadlines for the March 31, 2025, rollout.

Without adequate supporting documentation, the vendor cannot demonstrate readiness for deployment.

2.4. Past Performance

The vendor must demonstrate a consistent history of successful contract execution for government or enterprise clients with similar scope and complexity. The vendor’s past performance must include:

Proven success in large-scale implementations of workplace management solutions for portfolios exceeding 1 million square feet and 20+ locations.

Successful government contract execution, meeting or exceeding compliance, security, and operational benchmarks.

High CPARS ratings (3 ratings), customer testimonials, and case studies confirming project success.

On-time, on-budget project completion with documented cost savings or efficiency improvements.

The vendor demonstrates relevant past performance but lacks full alignment in scale, complexity, or success metrics.

Unsatisfactory – Neutral The vendor fails to demonstrate relevant past performance, project success, or validated client satisfaction.

2.5. FedRAMP, GSA LiSaaS ATO Readiness and Security Compliance

The vendor must demonstrate:

Existing FedRAMP Authorization at FIPS 199 Low or Moderate impact level, ensuring full compliance with federal cybersecurity and cloud security standards.

Delivery of the solution under a Managed Infrastructure as a Service (MiSaaS), Software as a Service (SaaS), or Platform as a Service (PaaS) model.

Full compliance with GSA’s enterprise identity and access management systems, including SCIM, SAML, and OpenID Connect.

Completion of all required documentation and security assessments necessary to obtain GSA’s Authorization to Operate (ATO) with no further remediation needed.

The vendor must demonstrate:

No current FedRAMP authorization but a viable plan for obtaining GSA Low Impact Software as a Service (LiSaaS) ATO within four weeks of contract award.

A detailed roadmap aligned with GSA IT Security Procedural Guide 16-75, showing a clear understanding of risk-based security review requirements.

Partial compliance with GSA’s identity and access management standards (SCIM, SAML, OpenID Connect), with a plan for full compliance before deployment.

A commitment to completing all required security assessments and documentation for GSA ATO, but requiring some additional remediation before full approval.

The vendor fails to demonstrate:

FedRAMP authorization at FIPS 199 Low or Moderate impact level.

A clear or feasible plan for obtaining GSA LiSaaS ATO within the required timeframe.

Compliance with GSA’s enterprise identity and access management systems (SCIM, SAML, OpenID Connect).

The ability to complete required security assessments and documentation, making the solution unsuitable for deployment within GSA’s secure IT environment.

2.6. Price

The offeror will be required to submit a lump sum for the work to be accomplished under this acquisition. The price will include the contractor’s labor, overhead, profit, and all contingencies in connection therewith, as no allowance will be made later for such items. The offeror will also submit pricing for the proposed Option(s) for additional work as detailed above. The offeror’s price for both the base work and for the Option(s), will be compared to the GCE, competition, historical knowledge, and other sources that the GSA deems applicable to determine if the price is fair and reasonable. The total evaluated price will be the sum of all Base and Option(s) pricing requested. This total evaluated price will be used to compare submissions.

3. SUPPLEMENTARY CONDITIONS

3.1. The Contractor shall exclusively utilize the key personnel and/or subcontractors named in the Contractor’s quote to perform identified services. The Government reserves the right to approve or disapprove any changes in key personnel and/or subcontractors proposed by the Contractor after award. In the event that any key personnel are unable to perform their duties, the Contractor shall promptly (within 3 days) submit to the CO, in writing, the name and qualifications of a proposed replacement with equal or superior qualifications. No substitution shall be made without prior approval of the CO. Any approved substitutions shall be made at no increase in contract price, delay in contract performance and/or decrease in capabilities.

3.2. FAR 52.217-5 Evaluation of Options. 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 option(s).

3.3. GSAR 552.203-71, Restriction on Advertising. In accordance with GSAR 552.203-

71, Restriction on Advertising, the contractor is precluded from referring to GSA contracts in commercial advertising in a manner that states or implies the Government approves or endorses the product or service or considers it superior to other products or services. The contractor may not disseminate or advertise any information concerning this project/contract without prior written approval of the Contracting Officer. The contractor may not photograph the project site other than as required by the contract or as directed by the Contracting Officer.

Access to Federally controlled space is governed by stringent security requirements. The contractor is prohibited from bringing individuals to the project/contract site for the purpose of marketing, self-promotion, media tours, and any other event or activity without the express written consent of the Contracting Officer. All media inquiries should be directed to the Contracting Officer. Any request for access to the project/contract site, other than to perform work related to the contract, shall be made in writing to the Contracting Officer