Attach_9_-_NETC_Library_Eval_Factor_Response_Instruct_&_Procedures_v.3_Amend_0003.pdf

RFQ# 70FA2019Q00000005

Amendment 0003

Attachment 9

Volume I – Technical Acceptability Evaluation Factor – Corporate Experience “Acceptable” is defined as “the proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation”.

“Unacceptable” is defined as “the proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation”.

INSTRUCTIONS EVALUATION

Offerors shall describe how their general background and experience are relevant to this requirement, which includes prior experience with contracts subject to Service Contract Labor Standards (SCLS). Offerors shall cite a project performed for a minimum of one (1) year within the past three (3) years with a minimum average annual value of $500K. Offerors shall then describe how their performance on the cited project is similar in size, scope, and complexity to this requirement. Only one (1) cited project shall be submitted. Accordingly, if the Offeror is a Prime Contractor / Subcontractor relationship, a Joint Venture (JV) partner relationship, or some combination of both, then the party in the relationship whose project is cited must have directly performed at least an average $250K worth of work on an annual basis on the project.

Additionally, Offerors shall provide the following information to facilitate the Government’s evaluation of the Offeror’s Corporate Experience:

Project Title

Name of Contracting Agency

Contract Number

Contract Type

Average Annualized and Total Contract Value

Performance Period (including any options)

Contracting PoC Name, Telephone Number, and Email

Program/Project Manager and/or COR Name, Telephone Number, and Email

Role and % of work performed (e.g. Prime – 50% / Sub 1 – 30% / Sub 2 – 20% or JV Partner 1 – 51% / JV Partner 2 – 49%) to include names of each party.

The response to this evaluation factor shall not exceed two (2) pages.

The Government will evaluate whether or not the Offeror has demonstrated recent successful experience managing a project similar in size, scope, and complexity to the immediate requirement. In making this determination, the Government will evaluate whether or not an Offeror meets all of the following standards:

The Offeror demonstrates its general background and experience are relevant, which includes prior experience with contracts subject to Service Contract Labor Standards

(SCLS);

The cited project complied with submission limitations and requirements per the instructions section for this evaluation factor e.g. information requested, time spans, dollar value thresholds, etc.

to the extent that it was sufficient enough to facilitate an evaluation;

The Offeror demonstrates its performance on the cited project is similar in size, scope, and complexity.

Volume I – Technical Acceptability Evaluation Factor – Work Plan “Acceptable” is defined as “based on the Offeror’s response, the Government has a reasonable expectation of successful performance”.

“Unacceptable” is defined as “based on the Offeror’s response, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation of successful performance”.

INSTRUCTIONS EVALUATION

The Offeror shall provide arespective Staffing Tables whose organization and minimal information must be consistent with the “NETC Library Support Services- Base” and “NETC Library Support - OP1-OP4” tabs from Attachment 4 – RFQ Response Pricing Templates, minus any and all references to price i.e. Labor Position, SCLS Classification, Full Time Equivalent (FTE) count, Weekly Hours, and Annual Hours. Theise Staffing Plans must reflect the combined totals of requested information from both the “NETC Library Support Services” tabs and the “Library Support – EMI AA Papers” tabs from Attachment 4.

The Offeror shall also provide a sample weekly schedule from a Monday to Sunday period to include shifts / hours by position for each day for each PWS Library operations and hours’ scenario i.e.

1. Regular hours & open on the weekend (Base PoP pre-EFO Program)

2. Regular hours & closed on the weekend (Base PoP pre-EFO Program)

3. EFO Program week & open on the weekend

4. EFO Program week & closed on the weekend

For evaluation simplicity and efficiency purposes, schedule scenarios 3 & 4 will assume the EFO Program will start 10/01/19 i.e. the start of FY2020. Each of these sample weekly schedules must include an explanation of the corresponding basis for the manner in which they were proposed including how PWS requirements will be met. The expectation of the Government is that the total hours associated with the EMI AA Papers wishall be reflected in each of these proposed schedules, but as the Base PoP of this requirement will overlap fiscal years 2019 and 2020, Offerors shall reflect the additional EMI weekly hours associated with OP1-OP4 in schedule scenarios 3 & 4.

Finally, the Offeror shall also include in its response a separate Staffing Table with the above requested information just from the “Library Support – EMI AA

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Work Plan to determine whether or not it demonstrates a thorough understanding of the requirement and represents a viable approach for successful performance the work. In making this determination, the Government will evaluate whether or not:

The staffing table complies with the instructions section for this evaluation factor and represents sufficient position quantities and skill mixes;

Weekly schedules for each scenario are submitted, do not conflict with any PWS hours or staffing requirements, and each include an adequate supporting explanation of how this proposed scheduling approach will meet PWS requirements;

The proposed positions, skill mixes, and hours for performing the EMI Advanced Academy Papers task reflects an understanding of the task and is reasonable;

There are no inconsistencies between the staffing table, scheduling scenarios, and the Offeror’s pricing response.

Papers” tab of Attachment 4 and explain the basis for performance of the task in the manner proposed.

The response to this evaluation factor shall not exceed six (6) pages.

Volume I – Technical Acceptability Evaluation Factor – Key Personnel “Acceptable” is defined as “the proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation”.

“Unacceptable” is defined as “the proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation”.

INSTRUCTIONS EVALUATION

Provide names and resumes, not to exceed two (2) pages, for each of the Key Personnel assigned to this contract. Resumes shall contain information on education, background, recent/relevant experience, years of experience with the firm(s), and unique qualifications applicable to the performance of this project. The Offeror shall describe and/or demonstrate how the proposed personnel’s qualifications meet those outlined in the PWS.

The Government will evaluate the resume(s) of proposed Key Personnel to determine compliance with the instructions section for this evaluation factor and whether or not the proposed individual(s) meet(s) the minimum qualifications stated in the PWS.

Evaluation Factor – Past Performance The Government will evaluate Past Performance in accordance with (IAW) FAR 13.106-2(b) in making its determination of how well the Offeror performed on the project cited in the Offeror’s response to the

Corporate Experience Evaluation Factor. The Government may also take into consideration Offeror performance on other recent and similar projects.

Volume II – Evaluation Factor – Price

INSTRUCTIONS EVALUATION

Offerors shall submit pricing information consistent with the content, structure, and organization outlined in Attachment 4 - RFQ Response Pricing Templates, which is significantly formula driven as completing the cells highlighted in yellow would demonstrate.

Any pricing input e.g. an hourly rate, H&W rate or amount, etc. that does not reflect the minimum mandated will be evaluated as noncompliant with Service Contract Labor Standards (SCLS) unless an Offeror otherwise and specifically acknowledges, explains the reason for submitting in this manner, and confirms that SCLS compliance will still be achieved.

While Offerors may make changes to this attachment as they deem necessary, these changes must not

Prevent the Government from being able to verify compliance with SCLS as currently proposed or in the future;

Otherwise conflict with SCLS and Wage Determination (WD) requirements;

Otherwise alter the structure of how pricing is being requested.

The Business Proposal shall also contain a completed copy of Attachment 10 – Responses to Solicitation Provisions and an acknowledgement of all Solicitation amendments (as and if applicable concerning the latter item).

Price reasonableness is anticipated to be based on competitive offers, which the Government will determine based on price analysis and its review for compliance per solicitation instructions. Price will be evaluated for accuracy, completeness, and consistency with the Volume I – Technical Response. This process will involve verification that requested price information has been provided and/or addressed, pricing is presented in an acceptable / the requested format, figures are correctly calculated, and pricing is consistent and compliant with Service Contract Labor Standards (SCLS) for applicable proposed labor categories.

Additionally, price will be analyzed for unbalanced pricing. Discrepancies, inconsistencies, or lack of explanations in these respects may result in the Government being unable to determine the proposed price as fair and reasonable.