Attachment_3_-_Instructions_and_Evaluation_Criteria_Rev1.pdf

Attachment 3

Instructions to Offerors

Submission of Proposals:

This acquisition is 100% set-aside for small business concerns. Only proposals submitted by small businesses will be accepted by the Government. Any proposal that is submitted by a contractor that is not a small business will not be considered for award. Offerors are required to certify their size status with their proposal.

Submissions shall be submitted electronically in TWO parts, Part I– Technical Proposal, Part II –

Business Proposal. Each part must be appropriately marked/titled “Part I– Technical Proposal” or “Part II – Business Proposal”. Each of the PARTS MUST be complete in itself so that evaluation of each part may be conducted independently, and so that the technical part may be evaluated strictly on its own merit. The proposals shall be accompanied by a transmittal letter, signed by an individual who is authorized to bind the company on contractual issues. The letter shall reference the RFP number and identify the documents being submitted. The letter shall also acknowledge agreement to a 90 day bid acceptance period.

Responses are due February 1, 2018 at 2:00 pm EST. Responses to this solicitation shall be submitted by email to Jerl.S.Traylor@hud.gov, the email message must be entitled, “Solicitation

Response: 86543F18Q00001 Cost Estimator”.

LIMITATION ON SIZE - Offerors shall limit Part I, Technical Submission, of their initial offers to the number of pages stated for each factor below. Offerors are cautioned that if Part I of their offer exceeds page limitations, the Government will evaluate up through the permitted number of pages only. Pages beyond that limit will not be evaluated. A page is considered to be one side of a single sheet of 8 ½ x 11 paper, single spaced, not smaller than a 12 pitch font size and having margins at the top, bottom and sides of the page no less than one inch in width. Note:

Font size for charts, snapshots and graphs maybe less than 12 pitch but must be legible.

PART I – TECHNICAL PROPOSAL - Note: For page counts on all factors do not include table of contents, executive summaries (1 page limit), proposal matrix. All other pages will count as a page as detailed on each evaluation criterion. Font size does not count for charts, graphs or screen-shots; however, they must be legible.

Offerors are advised that the definition of “Late submissions, modifications, revisions, and withdrawals of offers” contained in FAR clause 52.212-1 is applicable to this solicitation.

QUESTIONS ARE DUE NLT JANUARY 23, 2017 BY 12:00 PM EST. Questions submitted after that date will not be answered. Questions shall be submitted by email to Jerl.S.Traylor@hud.gov, the email message must be entitled, “Solicitation Questions: 86543F18Q00001 Cost Estimator”.

As part of the proposal submission, offerors shall submit a Proposal Matrix using the table below or similar format, which maps what page of the proposal addresses each Performance Work

Statement requirement identified under Technical Approach, and which page of the proposal fully addresses each Evaluation Factor. The offeror shall use the appropriate column to fill in the requirement as stipulated in the RFP to which the page/section number applies.

mailto:Jerl.S.Traylor@hud.gov mailto:Jerl.S.Traylor@hud.gov

Quotation Page(s)/Section

Number(s) RFQ Requirement

Performance Work

Statement

Section L or Instructions to Offerors

Section M or Evaluation

Factors Comments

TECHNICAL APPROACH (Shall not exceed 6 pages)

• The offeror shall submit a technical approach that demonstrates logical and feasible methods for meeting the requirements (including any Section 508 requirements) described in the Performance Work Statement and meeting the performance objectives outlined within the solicitation.

• The offeror shall submit a project schedule that demonstrates a clear understanding of the required operations and HUD requirements with realistic timeframes for performing all tasks.

• If the offeror is proposing subcontractors, the offeror shall clearly identify what aspects of the work will be performed by the prime and what aspects of the work will be performed by each subcontractor in its technical approach.

• The offeror shall submit a labor mix and level of effort represented by labor categories and number of hours per labor category. Offerors are cautioned not to include pricing in the labor mix/level of effort matrix submitted with the technical proposal.

MANAGEMENT PLAN (Shall not exceed 10 pages)

• The offeror shall submit a Management Plan that is clear, concise, and demonstrates that it will result in meeting the objectives and requirements contained within the Performance

Work Statement tasks identified under the instructions for Technical Approach.

• The offeror shall submit a Management Plan that details:

o key personnel and responsibilities;

o proposed subcontracting arrangements and reporting relationships of all subcontractors;

o a plan that demonstrates successful communication and coordination between the contractor and the government personnel/roles;

o schedules of all tasks and subtasks, meetings, and deliverables;

o Quality Control Plan.

KEY PERSONNEL (Shall not exceed 5 pages)

The offeror shall submit Key Personnel resumes that demonstrate sufficient relevant prior experience, qualifications, education, and certification for personnel proposed to fill the key positions identified by the offeror. Additionally, the Key Personnel proposed and the number identified must reflect adequate capabilities or skill sets to ensure the outcome and benefits sought by the government are achievable. The offeror shall state what percentage of the Key Personnel’s work week time will be dedicated to the performance of the contract. Letters of commitment are required for all Key Personnel.

Note: Offeror must fill in HUDAR clause 2452.237-70, Key Personnel.

PRICE

Offerors shall submit prices that are consistent with the requirements set forth in the Performance

Work Statement and in the format requested in Attachments 4 and 5 of this solicitation. If the offeror proposes annual cost of living increases, the offeror must support the proposed increases with historical and relevant market index information. Offerors shall break down their total price to reflect labor categories, labor rates, number of hours, materials and any other costs that make up the bottom line price.

Evaluation Factors

Offerors shall break down their total price to reflect labor categories, labor rates, number of hours, materials and any other costs that make up the bottom line price.

The Government will evaluate proposals for technical acceptability on an

Acceptable/Unacceptable basis using the process identified under the section entitled Best Value

LPTA Award. All technical criteria must be rated "Acceptable" to be considered Technically

Acceptable. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. The failure of a proposal to meet any or all of the technical criteria will result in a technically unacceptable rating and preclude award in the absence of discussions.

Each technical factor will receive one of the ratings listed below:

• Acceptable: The proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

• Unacceptable: The proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

The following table provides the minimum requirements for an offer to be determined acceptable under this factor:

TECHNICAL APPROACH

• The government will evaluate the following regarding the proposed Technical Approach:

o Whether the proposal demonstrates logical and feasible methods for meeting the requirements described in Performance Work Statement and meeting the performance objectives outlined within the solicitation;

o Whether the project schedule demonstrates:

▪ a clear understanding of the required operations and HUD requirements;

and

▪ realistic timeframes for performing the PWS tasks and associated deliverables identified herein.

• If the proposal includes subcontractors, whether the proposed approach delineates the technical responsibilities between the prime and the subcontractor(s).

• Whether the proposed labor mix and level of effort is based upon reasonable assumptions and is consistent with the requirements set forth in the Statement of Work and the proposed technical approach.

MANAGEMENT PLAN

• The government will evaluate the following regarding the proposed Management Plan:

o Whether the proposal supports the achievement of the Government’s objectives and requirements outlined in the solicitation regarding:

▪ Key Personnel and responsibilities;

▪ subcontracting arrangements and reporting relationships of all subcontractors;

▪ successful communication and coordination between the contractor and the government personnel/roles;

▪ schedules of all tasks and subtasks, meetings, and deliverables; and

▪ Quality Control Plan, KEY PERSONNEL

• The government will evaluate the following regarding the proposed Key Personnel:

o Whether the resumes demonstrate relevant prior experience, qualifications, education, and certification, if applicable, for personnel proposed to fill the key positions identified in the solicitation;

o Whether the number of key personnel identified and/or the amount of time each will commit to the effort, reflect a clear understanding of the requirement described in the Performance Work Statement; and o Whether letters of commitment were submitted and are acceptable.

PRICE

Price will be evaluated separately from Technical and other non-cost/price factors, and will be evaluated as follows:

Reasonableness. The reasonableness of the total price proposed will be evaluated as follows:

• On the basis of adequate price competition, by comparing the proposed prices among offers; and/or;

• Comparing proposed prices to the Independent Government Cost Estimate to ensure that prices are reasonable for the results to be achieved; and/or

• Comparison of proposed prices to valid historical prices paid, whether by the

Government or other than the Government, for the same or similar items, adjusted for material differences and differing terms and conditions, quantities and market and economic factors; and/or

• Use of parametric estimating methods/application of rough yardsticks (such as dollars per pound or per horsepower, or other units) to highlight significant inconsistencies that warrant additional pricing inquiry; and/or

• Comparison with competitive published price lists, published market prices of commodities, similar indexes, and discount or rebate arrangements; and/or

• Comparison of proposed prices with prices obtained through market research for the same or similar items; and/or

• Analysis of data other than certified cost or pricing data provided by the offeror at the request of the Contracting Officer.

Unless it is determined not to be in the Government's best interest in accordance with FAR

17.206(b); offers will be evaluated for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. For purposes of evaluating the price of exercising the potential 6-month extension of services using the clause at FAR 52.217-8, 50% of the final option year (six months) value will be added to the total proposed amount for evaluating pricing only, this amount will not be included in the total aggregate value of the resulting contract. This addition is for evaluation purposes only.

Unbalanced Pricing - Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and could result in payment of unreasonably high prices. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. The Government will analyze offers to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to separately priced line items. Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

BEST VALUE LPTA EVALUATION PROCESS AND AWARD

The Government intends to make an award to the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable responsible offeror who represents the best value to the Government. Past Performance will be reviewed as part of the determination of responsibility but will not be an evaluation factor.

Award will be made to the acceptable Offeror with the lowest evaluated price, who is deemed responsible in accordance with FAR Part 9.104 and whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements. The solicitation requirements include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by the Government. Technical tradeoffs will not be made and no additional credit will be given for exceeding acceptability.

It is the Government's intent to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors. Therefore, the offeror's initial proposal should be their best effort and contain the offeror's best terms from a price standpoint. If award is made without discussions, proposal revisions will not be permitted. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer (CO) later determines them to be necessary.

The Government will evaluate proposals in accordance with the following evaluation process to determine the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable offeror who represents best value to the

Government:

1) All offers will be ranked based upon an assessment of total overall evaluated prices;

2) A full evaluation of the Technical Acceptability of the lowest priced proposal will be conducted;

3) A price reasonableness determination will be conducted of the lowest priced technically acceptable proposal.

Only proposals rated technically acceptable for all factors are eligible to receive an award. If the lowest priced technically acceptable proposal is determined to be reasonably priced and the offeror is determined to be responsible in accordance with FAR Part 9.104, evaluation will end and the Government will make award to that offeror as the LPTA proposal that represents the best value to the government.

However, if the lowest priced offer is determined not to be technically acceptable or a price reasonableness determination cannot be made due to unbalanced pricing or for other reasons, the

Government will proceed to evaluate the Technical Acceptability and then price reasonableness of the next lowest priced proposal and so on, until the Government identifies the lowest priced technically acceptable responsible offeror.

If, at any time, the CO determines negotiations are required, the Government will evaluate all proposals for technical acceptability and price reasonableness before entering into discussions with offerors. The Government reserves the right, based upon the results from the technical evaluation and price evaluations to establish a competitive range. Should a competitive range be established, the Government will enter into discussions with only those offerors within the competitive range. Upon conclusion of discussions and final proposal revisions, the Government will assess the offers within the competitive range in accordance with the initial evaluation process identified above to determine the lowest priced, technically acceptable, responsible contract awardee.