CombinedSol-Synopsis_Library Services Platform_REV 12-18-2019.pdf

Combined Synopsis / Solicitation Number 75N97019Q00059

This is a combined synopsis/solicitation for a commercial product/service prepared in accordance with the format in FAR 12.6 as supplemented with additional information included in this notice.

This is being solicitated as Brand Name or Equal for Alma and/or Primo VE. This announcement constitutes the only solicitation; proposals are being requested and a separate written solicitation will not be issued. This solicitation number is 75N97019Q00059 and is issued as a Request for Proposal (RFP). The solicitation/contract will include all applicable provisions and clauses in effect through Federal Acquisition Circular 2005-83. The North American Industrial Classification (NAICS) code 541519 with a size standard $27.5M. This acquisition is being conducted using Simplified Acquisition Procedures in accordance with FAR Part Subpart 13.5.

The purpose of this contract is to provide the National Library of Medicine (NLM) with cloud based Library Services Platform and Discovery Layer as well as the technical, management, and support services for implementing and maintaining the platform. Please see the attached Statement of Work for the complete scope of work.

COMMITMENT OF PUBLIC FUNDS

The Contracting Officer is the only individual who can legally commit the Government to the expenditure of public funds in connection with the proposed acquisition. Any other commitment, either explicit or implied, is invalid.

COMMUNICATIONS PRIOR TO AWARD

Offerors shall direct all communications to the attention of:

April Merriwether, Contracting Officer Email: merriwetheran@mail.nih.gov

Communications with other officials may compromise the competitiveness of this acquisition and result in cancellation of the requirement.

PREPARATION COSTS

This RFP does not commit the Government to pay for the preparation and submission of a proposal.

QUESTIONS: If you have any questions regarding this requirement, please submit your inquiries to April Merriwether, Contracting Officer, at merriwetheran@mail.nih.gov no later than Tuesday, December 17, 2019 at 11:00AM Eastern Standard Time. Questions with the Government’s responses will be posted to Beta.SAM.gov. Please be advised that the Government reserves the right to transmit those questions and answers of a common interest to all prospective Offerors.

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND PROPOSAL DUE DATE:

In order to receive an award, contractor must be registered and have a valid certification in Beta SAM (System For Award Management) https://beta.sam.gov/. Interested vendors capable of providing the Government with the services specified in this combined synopsis/solicitation shall submit electronic responses to merriwetheran@mail.nih.gov. Please reference solicitation number 75N97019Q00059 on all correspondence to this notice.

Proposals must be submitted electronically no later than January 10, 2019 at 11:00AM EST.

The proposal submitted shall be prepared in three volumes and clearly identified as: Volume 1:

Technical Proposal, Volume 2: Business Proposal, and Volume 3: Past Performance.

Note: Volume 1 must include a completed GPAT.

Page Limit: 100 pages, excluding appendices.

Formatting: Page size 8.5 by 11 inches with 1 inch margins. Paragraphs single spaced. Minimum font size/style 10 point Times New Roman font for Text, 9 point font in the Arial family for Tables, and 8 point font in the Arial family for Graphics. Tables and graphics may be landscape; all other text must be portrait.

If the offeror uses a different format (font size, margin, etc.), the government reserves the right to adjust the proposal to fit the parameters of the format as stated in the RFP, and if this results in the proposal exceeding the page limitations in any one area, the government will not consider those excess pages.

Period of Performance: The anticipated period of performance shall be for a base period of one year, with 4 one-year option periods. Base Period: 3/3/2020 – 3/2/2021; Option Pd. 1: 3/3/2021 – 3/2/2022; Option Pd. 2: 3/3/2022 – 3/2/2023; Option Pd. 3: 3/3/2023 – 3/2/2024; Option Pd. 4:

3/3/2024 – 3/2/2025

Transmittal Information:

Include the following information in your proposal:

1) DUNS number and TIN;

2) Company Name mailing address, and website address;

3) Company Point of Contact, Phone and Email address.

4) Date submitted and proposal expiration date;

5) All of the above-cited information for each entity on the proposed team, if a team is proposed;

6) Do you have a Government approved accounting system? If so, please identify the agency that approved the system;

7) Type of Company (i.e., small business, 8(a), woman owned, veteran owned, etc.) as validated via the Beta SAM (System for Award Management). All offerors must register in SAM located at https://beta.sam.gov/;

Proposals shall be in sufficient detail to permit proper evaluation, negotiation, and/or acceptance thereof. The technical proposal must not contain reference to price; however, resource information (such as data concerning labor hours and categories, materials, subcontracts, etc.) must be contained in the technical proposal so that the offeror’s understanding of the Statement of Work may be evaluated. The price proposal shall be submitted as a Fixed Price proposal with pricing for each element of the Statement of Work.

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1. General

“Award of task order(s) will be made on a competitive best-value basis, using “trade-offs” among cost/price and non-cost/price factors. The Government may elect to award to other than the lowest-priced offeror(s), or other than the offeror(s) with the highest rated non-cost/price proposal(s). In either case, the Contracting Officer (CO) will conduct a tradeoff evaluation. The Government reserves the right of this flexibility in conducting the evaluation as necessary to ensure an award with the contractor providing the best value to the Government. It is the Government’s intent to award without discussions, although the Government also reserves the right to make a competitive range determination and to conduct negotiations.”

Selection of the best value to the Government will be achieved through evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of each offeror’s proposal in accordance with the criteria stated in the Request for Proposal (RFP). The best-value selection basis reflects the Government’s willingness to accept other than the lowest cost/price if the perceived benefits of the proposal with the higher price merit the additional cost/price. Proposal evaluations will be conducted in accordance with the evaluation criteria stated below. The award decision will be made based on an integrated assessment of each quote on a “trade-off” basis between technical excellence, past performance, and price. The Source Selection Authority (SSA) will document the rationale for the trade-offs between a higher cost or price quote and the benefits obtained for offerors’ technical proposals and past performance in the Selection Decision Statement. In making this integrated assessment of all proposals, the Government strives to obtain superior performance rather than the lowest overall cost/price.

However, the Government will not make an award at a significantly higher overall price to obtain only slightly improved performance or past performance.

2. EVALUATION OF OPTIONS

It is anticipated that any order awarded under this Request for Quotation will contain option provision(s) and period(s). In accordance with FAR Clause 52.217-5, Evaluation of Options (July 1990), the Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement, except when it is determined in accordance with FAR 17.206(b) not to be in the Government’s best interests. Evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

Proposals will be reviewed and evaluated in accordance with the evaluation criteria identified Below.

3. TECHNICAL EVALUATION FACTORS (Volume 1) The proposal will be rated on its capabilities to meet the evaluation criteria on the scale as follows:

Factor Degree of Importance A Technical Capability 50 B Service Support 30 C Corporate Related Experience 20

Technical Capability - 50% The vendor must submit a concise written response directly addressing each of the requirements described in section 5, indicating if and/or how the offered product and service meets each requirement.

Service Support - 30% The vendor should describe their support and service level commitment to NLM’s implementation and ongoing maintenance of the Library Services Platform and Discovery Layer.

Corporate Related Experience - 20% The proposal should include URLs and passwords, if needed, of at least three independent implementations that are open to the public and similar in size and scope to NLM so that NLM can assess proof of corporate experience. The vendor should include contact information for the institutions who can describe the performance of the vendor’s organization.

The proposal will be evaluated on the extent to which it:

Cleary demonstrates the short- and long- term development strategies for the system and how these strategies are determined.

Details the extent to which Linked Data elements are integrated into the staff interface and discovery layer.

Describes the activities surrounding BIBFRAME and Linked Data and how system supports these formats.

Details the types of customizable or non-customizable messaging and alerts supported for staff users.

Clearly describes the role of customers in the product enhancement process.

Explains the process of how orders are handled for electronic and print versions of the same title.

Describes the process for tag table and validation table updates including keeping current and possibility of customization.

Explains the process for handling of 'bound withs'.

Details the method of authority (local and global) records management in the system.

Describes a typical subscription renewal workflow in the system.

Explains the process and method of system creating and storing item level data in relation to other data.

Demonstrates the system capability and process of supporting global changes to records.

Explains the process of the creation and maintenance of indexes.

Details the frequency of records newly added or edited in the system indexed for search by staff and in the discovery layer.

Describes the procedures/process of the Knowledge Base to track changes made by providers and additions of resources to collections, as well as other changes.

Describes the process for adding and maintaining local resource data in the Knowledge Base.

Details the user community involvement in the development of the Knowledge Base.

Describes the steps for activating and providing access to an electronic resource.

Clearly explains the process of system supports for evaluation and renewal of e-resource items.

Describes the subscription tracking process.

Details the method/way for storing subscription period, cost, payment (including pro rata payments), renewal, and cancellation information.

Describes the functionality of system’s digital asset management system.

Explains the workflow/process of system links to digital objects on other local and external systems.

Describes the definition of loan rules in the system.

Describes the ability for patron self-registration.

Details the process of using patron ID as barcode.

Describes a typical borrowing request workflow.

Clearly explains the interaction between and support for use of external reporting systems and/or data warehouses.

Details the process of required downtime including planning, noting the frequencies, durations and purposes.

Explains the procedures/rules for scheduled jobs to run during planned or unplanned downtimes.

Clearly describes customer support venues, periods of coverage, and expected response times.

Details the user interface(s), including media player, support and compliance with WCAG 2.0 AA standards (refer to https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/wcag/) and Section 508 accessibility.

NLM will perform a final best-buy analysis taking into consideration the results of the technical evaluation, cost/price analysis, and ability to complete the work as described.

4. COST/PRICE (Volume 2) Technical Factors are more important than cost or price. Selection of the firm(s) to perform the order will be based on the Government’s assessment of the best overall value.

Offerors will be evaluated based upon cost/price completeness and accuracy to determine the validity of the price, cost/price realism, cost/price reasonableness, and cost/price risk. Total estimated ceiling price to accomplish the requirement and all of its options will be utilized as a basis for evaluating price. The factors below will be used to assess whether the Offerors' proposal is complete, accurate, and realistic to minimize cost or performance risk.

Cost/Price Completeness and Accuracy: The Government will review the cost/ price schedules for completeness and accuracy. A determination will be made as to whether the offeror has properly understood the business proposal instructions and properly completed the cost/price schedules. Changes to the evaluation quantities, blanks or zeros in the pricing columns, and/or mathematical mistakes are subject to clarification for confirmation of the offeror’s intent. The offeror's proposal will be checked for mathematical correctness to include the following:

1. Checking arithmetic in all computations.

2. Making sure that all prices/costs are summarized correctly.

3. Comparing electronic submittals with hard copies; if applicable.

A determination will be made regarding whether the cost/price appears unbalanced, either for the total cost/price of the proposal or separately priced line items. An analysis will be made by item, quantity, and year to identify any irregular or unusual pricing patterns. An unbalanced proposal is one that incorporates prices that are less than cost for some items and/or prices that are overstated for other items.

Cost/Price Realism: The Offerors are placed on notice that any proposals that are unrealistic in terms of technical commitment or unrealistically low in cost(s) and/or price will be deemed reflective of an inherent lack of technical competence or indicative of failure to comprehend the complexity and risk of contract requirements and may be grounds for rejection of the proposal.

Cost/Price Reasonableness: The Offerors are expected to establish a reasonable price relationship between all cost/price elements. An evaluation of the Offerors’ price proposals will be made to determine if they are realistic for the work to be performed, reflect a clear understanding of the requirements and are consistent with the Technical Proposal.

Reasonableness determinations will be made by determining if competition exists, by comparing proposed cost/price with established commercial prices, other contract vehicles, and/or by comparing proposed cost/price with the Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE). The IGCE is not releasable to the public.

5. PAST PERFORMANCE (Volume 3) Offeror's past performance information will be evaluated subsequent to the technical evaluation.

However, this evaluation will not be conducted on any offeror whose proposal is determined to be technically unacceptable.

The Offeror shall identify three (3) contracts/task orders with the Federal Government and/or commercial customers that demonstrate recent and relevant past performance. Recent is defined as within the last three years. Relevant is defined as work similar in complexity and magnitude of the work described in this Statement of Work.

Include the following information:

• Project title

• Description of the project

• Contract number

• Contract amount

• Government Agency/Organization

• COR’s name, address, and phone number

• Contracting Officer’s name, address, and phone number

• Contract and, if applicable, task order number

• Current status, e.g., completed and/or if in progress, start and estimated completion dates

• Dollar value and type of contract

• Name of company being referenced

• SOW paragraphs that the reference applies to

• Key personnel (please highlight those individuals who worked on the relevant project(s) and are also being proposed for this effort.)

• A brief narrative of why you deem the reference to be relevant to this effort

The Government may also consider information obtained through other sources. Past performance information will be utilized to determine the quality of the contractor’s past performance as it relates to the probability of success of the required effort.

Past performance will be evaluated using the relevancy ratings below.

VERY RELEVANT Present/past performance involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities as this solicitation requires.

RELEVANT Present/past performance involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities as this solicitation requires.

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

NOT RELEVANT Present/past performance involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities as the solicitation requires.

The proposal as a whole will be assigned a risk rating.

PROPOSAL

RISK RATING

DEFINITION

High Likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increase cost, or degradation of performance. Risk may be unacceptable even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Medium Can potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

Low Has little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Statement of Work, dated December 06, 2019

2. GPAT

FEDERAL ACQUISITION REQULATION (FAR) CLAUSES

The following provisions and clauses apply to this acquisition and are incorporated by reference.

Full text may be found at https://www.acquisition.gov

FAR 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors—Commercial Items FAR 52.212-2 Evaluation—Commercial Items FAR 52.212-3 Offeror Representations and Certifications—Commercial Items FAR 52.212-4 Contract Terms and Conditions—Commercial Items FAR 52.212-5 Contract Terms and Conditions Required to Implement Statutes and Executive orders

The offeror must include a completed copy of the following provisions with your proposal submission: FAR Clause 52.212-3, Offeror Representations and Certifications – Commercial Items and FAR Clause 52-212-5, Contract Terms and Conditions Required to Implement Statutes or Executive Orders – Commercial Items – Deviation for Simplified Acquisitions.