P14 - Instructions to Offerors and Evaluation Criteria FINAL FINAL.docx

Instructions to Offerors, Evaluation Factors and Rating Scales for HUD OIG – Ginnie Mae Financial Statement Requirement

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.

The Government may waive informalities and minor irregularities in proposals received. Questions on this solicitation are due to oigcap@hudoig.gov by 2:00PM ET, November 22, 2019. Proposals are due to oigcap@hudoig.gov by 2:00PM ET, December 16, 2019. No late questions nor proposals will be accepted. Page limitations stated below shall be enforced. The Government will truncate the proposal counting from the page after the cover page for each section.

Proposal Page(s)/Section Number(s)

TECHNICAL APPROACH (Shall not exceed 20 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 inclusive of all tasks/actions/requirements 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 OIG 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.

· Labor mix and level of effort (labor categories and number of hours for each labor category). Offerors are cautioned not to include pricing in the labor mix/level of effort matrix submitted with the technical proposal. Offeror shall provide a spreadsheet containing all listed labor categories and descriptions/qualifications similar to Attachment #3 – Labor Categories. The spreadsheet does not count towards page limit totals.

QUALITY CONTROL PLAN (Shall not exceed 5 pages)

The offeror shall submit a Preliminary Quality Control Plan that demonstrates an understanding of the business requirements by describing effective and independent quality control methods and procedures to ensure that all tasks are completed in accordance with the performance standards listed in the solicitation.

At a minimum, the offeror shall submit a preliminary QCP that:

· Describes key risk areas management controls, corrective actions

· Describe how the offeror will ensure compliance with Section 508 requirements

· Describe how the offeror will ensure the effective management of employees of the prime and subcontractors and their activities.

· The offeror shall submit an organizational chart that reflects the independence of the Quality Control function.

MANAGEMENT PLAN (Shall not exceed 5 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:

· Key positions/roles and responsibilities (position/role and not individuals to be named to such position/role);

· Proposed subcontracting arrangements and reporting relationships of all subcontractors;

· Outline how the Offeror would ensure they can provide, hire, retain, or otherwise furnish the necessary skillsets required throughout the life of the requirement;

· A plan that demonstrates successful communication and coordination between the contractor and the government personnel/roles;

· Clear lines of authority from the top of the organization to all those working on this effort

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

PAST PERFORMANCE

The offeror shall submit the following information/documents:

· A completed chart providing the information required by the Past Performance Information chart in Attachment #5 – Past Performance Chart. The chart shall reflect all relevant past performance performed in the three-year period immediately preceding submission of the proposal and all work currently being performed. If the offeror has more than 5 relevant past performance references, then the offeror shall provide the most recent 5 references. As an attachment to the chart, the offeror shall provide a narrative describing the past performance references that reflect the most relevance to the services being obtained under the contract to be awarded. The narrative shall clearly establish the relevancy of the past performance to the current requirements. (Narratives shall not exceed 1 page per reference.)

· If the offeror is proposing to subcontract (or use joint ventures/ partners, or other entities other than the prime contractor to perform) more than 20% of the contract value, the offeror shall submit a separate chart and narrative described for past performance above, for the proposed subcontractor(s).

· The contractor shall provide the survey contained in Attachment #6 – Past Performance Survey to each past performance reference in sufficient time for the reference to complete and submit the survey directly to the HUD OIG Contracting Officer prior to the date and time for submission of proposals. Offerors are not required to submit surveys for references where past performance is available in CPARS or PPIRS.

· If past performance for the offering firm does not exist, the Offeror may substitute past performance of key personnel that will be performing major aspects of the work under any resulting contract. If the Offeror chooses to make such a substitution, the offeror must clearly identify the substituted key personnel by name and title proposed. Only the past performance of Key Personnel overseeing the entirety of the proposed project will be considered in substitution for the firm’s past performance under this factor. The contractor shall provide the survey contained in Attachment #6 to each past performance reference with first-hand knowledge of the performance of the substituted Key Personnel in sufficient time for the reference to complete and submit the survey directly to the HUD Contracting Officer prior to the date and time for submission of proposals.

SOCIOECONOMIC PARTICIPATION

(1) Performance of the Work. HUD OIG is committed to awarding HUD OIG contracts to offerors that will perform a majority of the total cost of labor under the contract. While it is understood that certain costs are necessarily subcontracted, especially non-labor items, HUD OIG is focused on obtaining prime contractors who are responsible and capable of performing a large part of the labor required to perform the contract (as opposed to firms who subcontract substantial portions of the labor effort), while simultaneously focusing on achieving socioeconomic goals for small business participation as well. To achieve this objective, all offerors shall complete the following table to reflect what percentage and dollar value of the total cost of labor the offeror and all subcontractors/teaming partners will perform throughout the contract term:

Small

SDVOSB

WOSB

HUBZone

100%

Total

1 To calculate total costs of subcontracted labor, such labor costs shall be calculated based upon excluding cost of overhead and G&A of the prime contractor; subcontractor labor may include fully burdened rates of the subcontractor. Exceptions would be for acquisitions utilizing contractual fully burdened labor rates (e.g. GSA Schedules or GWACs).

2 Socioeconomic categories include Large Business (LB), Small Business (SB), Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB), Woman-owned Small Business (WOSB), Service Disabled Veteran-owned Small Business (SDVOSB), and Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone); identify all that apply to individual firms. For example, one firm could potentially be an SDB, SDVOSB, WOSB, and HUBZone small business.

(2) Letters of Commitment. HUD OIG is also interested in ensuring that offerors have strong commitments from their teaming partners. As such, all offerors shall submit letters of commitment from all businesses they intend to subcontract/team with who will provide more than 10% of the total cost of labor during performance of the contract. All letters of commitment shall include the following information:

(i) – Reference the solicitation number;

(ii) – Clearly state that the commitment is for support as a subcontractor on any contract/order awarded;

(iii) – Identify the work or professional service disciplines to be provided through subcontracting;

(iv) – Identify the period covered by the commitment (e.g. contract base period and all options or other agreement);

(v) – Identify any key personnel to provide support under the subcontract;

(vi) – Provide a general description of the subcontractor’s capacity to support proposed task(s) with a specific statement regarding capacity limits;

(vii) – Identify specific terms and conditions governing the commitment; and

(viii) - Reference any prior relationship with the offeror that would indicate the potential for successful performance.

(3) Socio-Economic Goals. Consistent with the intent of the Small Business Act, HUD OIG is strongly committed to ensuring that small businesses, veteran-owned small businesses, service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses, HUBZone small businesses, small disadvantaged businesses and women-owned small businesses have maximum opportunities to participate in HUD OIG’s procurement programs. To reinforce its commitment, the following established socioeconomic subcontracting participation goals as stated below.

(i) HUD Small Business Subcontracting Participation Goals:

Small Business – 28%

(ii) Within that total, the following subordinate goals apply:

(A) Small Disadvantaged Business – 5%

(B) Women-Owned Small Business – 5%

(C) Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business – 3%

(D) HUBZone Small Business – 3%

PRICE

Offerors shall submit a Price Proposal that includes pricing for the base period and each option period, to include the fee percentages and dollar amounts. The cost/price proposal shall include labor rates for both contractor and government sites, and the proposed labor category descriptions, as indicated in the PWS. Contractors shall utilize progress/performance payments as listed in Attachment 7, though offerors may propose their own progress/performance payment schedule as reasonable.

Although the Government has proposed to have the work performed primarily off site at a contractor’s facility, to make an informed decision regarding the location of the work to be performed, the price proposal shall include labor rates and other costs of work to be performed at the government site, and a separate price proposal to perform the work at the contractor’s site.

Offerors must submit 2 pricing proposals per CLIN, which will align with the periods of performance. One proposal shall be the labor hour pricing, and the other shall be firm fixed price. The Government will retain the sole unilateral right to exercise either option each period of performance. The Firm Fixed Pricing option shall not contain any optional services or items and shall be all inclusive. Offerors shall submit Attachment E with rough order of magnitude expected hours to supplement the labor hour proposal.

Base Period

Option Period 1

Option Period 2

Option Period 3

Option Period 4

Evaluation Factors for Best Value Trade Off Acquisitions

TECHNICAL APPROACH

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

· How well the proposal demonstrates logical and feasible methods for meeting the requirements described in the Performance Work Statement inclusive of all tasks/actions/requirements and meeting the performance objectives outlined within the solicitation.;

· How well the project schedule demonstrates:

· a clear understanding of the required operations and HUD OIG requirements; and

· realistic timeframes for performing the PWS/SOW tasks and associated deliverables identified in the Instructions to Offerors.

· If the proposal includes subcontractors, how well the proposed approach delineates the technical responsibilities between the prime and the subcontractor(s). and

· How well the proposed labor mix is based upon reasonable assumptions and is consistent with the requirements set forth in the Performance Work Statement and the proposed technical approach.

QUALITY CONTROL PLAN

· The government will evaluate how well:

· The proposed Preliminary Quality Control Plan addresses the requirements listed in the Instructions to Offerors to ensure that all tasks are completed in accordance with the performance standards listed in the solicitation.

· The organizational chart reflects the independence of the Quality Control function.

MANAGEMENT PLAN

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

· How well the proposal supports the achievement of the Government’s objectives and requirements outlined in the solicitation regarding:

· Key positions/roles and responsibilities (position/role and not individuals to be named to such position/role);

· Proposed subcontracting arrangements and reporting relationships of all subcontractors;

· Outline how the Offeror would ensure they can provide, hire, retain, or otherwise furnish the necessary skillsets required throughout the life of the requirement;

· A plan that demonstrates successful communication and coordination between the contractor and the government personnel/roles;

· Clear lines of authority from the top of the organization to all those working on this effort

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

PAST PERFORMANCE

In evaluating Past Performance, HUD OIG will address four (4) components – recency, relevancy, quality, and sufficiency. This factor’s primary emphasis is to assess the past performance of the proposed prime contractor (or in the case of joint ventures or some other teaming arrangement, the primary member of the team) or that of substituted key personnel. However, if significant subcontracting/use of other teaming arrangements is anticipated, the past performance history of the proposed subcontractors/other team members must also be evaluated.

· All references will be first assessed for recency and HUD OIG will consider only references performed within the three years immediately prior to submission of the proposal;

· Of those determined to be recent, HUD OIG will assess the degree of similarity in scope, value and magnitude the past performance efforts submitted have to the solicitation requirements to determine relevancy. For this solicitation, magnitude is defined as Audit Support actions by dollar value;

· HUD OIG will then assess relevant past performance efforts for quality;

· HUD OIG’s overall assessment will be based upon sufficiency of high quality past performance and risk of nonperformance.

The final rating under this factor will encompass the totality of the information provided, including completeness, relevancy, and the depth, breadth, and quality of only relevant past performance for the proposed prime contractor and proposed subcontractor/team members or substituted key personnel. The final rating will range from Excellent (High Confidence) to Unsatisfactory (Low Confidence). Offerors that have addressed the factor and have no relevant past performance history by the prime, any subcontractors/team members, or substituted key personnel will be rated as Neutral (Neutral Confidence). Offerors that fail to address the factor will be determined to have not complied with the solicitation requirements and will receive the lowest possible rating.

HUD OIG is not restricted to evaluating the information provided by the offeror or the surveys provided by references and may utilize information obtained from any source. HUD will obtain additional information from the Government’s CPARS/PPIRS, if available.

SOCIOECONOMIC PARTICIPATION

The government will evaluate this factor as follows:

· Excellent

If a proposal meets the following criteria, it will receive an excellent rating:

The offeror is a small business that is performing 100% of the cost of the contract with its own workforce, or The offeror is a small business and proposes to subcontract less than 25% of the cost of the contract and at least 75% of the proposed subcontract value will be made to other small businesses.

or The offeror is not a small business and clearly proposes to maximize small business participation by subcontracting a substantial amount of the contract value (41-50%) with at least 60% of the subcontracted value proposed to go to small businesses and The plan reflects significant effort to achieve all socioeconomic goals and The offeror submitted subcontracting or teaming agreements for all businesses they intend to subcontract with during performance of the contract.

· Good

If a proposal meets the following criteria, it will receive a good rating:

The offeror is a small business and proposes to subcontract less than 50% of the cost of the contract and at least 50% of the proposed subcontract value will be made to other small businesses.

or The offeror is not a small business and clearly proposes to provide substantial small business participation by subcontracting a significant amount of the contract value (31-40%) with at least 50% of the subcontracted value proposed to go to small businesses and The plan reflects reasonable effort to achieve all of the socioeconomic goals and The offeror submitted subcontracting or teaming agreements for all businesses they intend to subcontract with during performance of the contract.

· Fair

If a proposal meets the following criteria, it will receive a fair rating:

The offeror is a small business and proposes to subcontract up to 50% of the cost of the contract and more than 75% of the proposed subcontract value will be made to other than small businesses.

or

The offeror is not a small business and proposes to provide some small business participation by subcontracting a reasonable amount of the contract value (20-30%) with at least 45% of the subcontracted value proposed to go to small businesses and The plan reflects some effort to achieve all of the socioeconomic goals and The offeror submitted subcontracting or teaming agreements for most but not all businesses they intend to subcontract with during performance of the contract.

· Marginal

If a proposal meets the following criteria, it will receive a marginal rating:

The offeror is a small business and proposes to subcontract up to 50% of the cost of the contract and more than 90% of the proposed subcontract value will be made to other than small businesses.

or The offeror is not a small business and proposes to provide minimal small business participation by subcontracting a little of the contract value (20-30%) with no less than 40% of the subcontracted value proposed to go to small businesses and The plan reflects some effort to achieve some of the socioeconomic goals and The offeror submitted subcontracting or teaming agreements for most but not all businesses they intend to subcontract with during performance of the contract.

· Unsatisfactory

If a proposal meets the following criteria, it will receive an unsatisfactory rating:

The offeror is a large business and failed to submit a socioeconomic participation plan and failed to provide sufficient rationale that indicates no subcontracting opportunities exist, or The offeror is a large business proposing to subcontract less than 20% of all subcontracted dollars to small business, or The offeror proposes to subcontract more than 50% of the cost of the contract, or The offeror is a small business and fails to address this factor, or The offeror did not submit subcontracts or teaming agreements from most of the businesses they intend to subcontract with during performance of the contract.

PRICE

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

The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by evaluating the cost for the basic period of performance as well as all options. Evaluation of option years will not obligate the Government to exercise the option years. 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.

An offer that is materially unbalanced as defined in FAR Part 15.404-1(g) may be rejected as being unacceptable.

Realism. The Government will evaluate the realism of proposed cost by assessing the compatibility of proposed cost with proposal scope and effort. For the cost to be realistic, it must reflect what it would cost the Offeror to perform the effort, if performed with reasonable economy and efficiency. Cost realism evaluation includes a review of the overall costs in the Offeror's proposal to determine:

· If costs are realistic for the work proposed;

· If costs reflect a clear understanding of the requirements; and

· If costs are consistent with the various elements of the Offeror's management proposal, (e.g., if the Offeror's proposal identifies 25 staff-years of effort, then the pricing should also reflect 25 staff-years of cost);

· The probable costs of the effort.

Reasonableness. The Government will evaluate the reasonableness of proposed cost and target ceilings for the base and option periods by assessing the acceptability of the Offeror's methodology used in developing the cost estimates. For the cost to be reasonable, in its nature and amount, it should not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of a competitive business. Reasonableness takes into account the context of a given source selection, including current market conditions and other factors that affect the ability of an Offeror to perform the contract requirements.

Completeness. Cost proposals will be evaluated for completeness by assessing the appropriateness of the proposed costs to the contract requirements, by assessing the level of detail of the offeror-provided cost data for all requirements in the work statement and assessing the traceability of estimates. For the cost data to be complete, the offeror, or its subcontractors, must provide all the data necessary to support the offer. The amount of data needed may vary depending upon the requirements.

BEST VALUE AWARD

· The government will use a best value trade off process; thus, the Government may award to other than the lowest priced offeror or other than the offeror with the highest rated technical proposal. Each offeror’s total evaluated price will be traded off against the offeror’s technical portion of the proposal, to determine the overall best value to the Government, if needed. The best value is represented by the most advantageous offer, price and non-price factors considered.

· Evaluation factors are listed in descending order of importance: Technical Approach, Quality Control Plan, Management Approach, Past Performance, Socioeconomic Participation. All evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price. However, as the offerors become more equal in technical merit, the importance of price to the evaluation decision will increase. The Government shall make award to the offeror who represents the overall best value to the Government.

Adjectival Ratings for Other Than Past Performance or Socioeconomic Participation Evaluation Factors

The following adjectival ratings provide a standardized means to evaluate proposals for factors other than past performance or socioeconomic participation:

· Excellent/Very Low Risk – An excellent proposal is characterized as follows: The proposed approach indicates an exceptionally thorough and comprehensive understanding of the contract and program goals, resources, schedules, and other aspects essential to performance of the program. In terms of the specific factor (or significant subfactor), the proposal contains one or more strengths and no weaknesses, significant weaknesses or deficiencies. The risk of unsuccessful contract performance is very low.

· Good/Low Risk – A good proposal is characterized as follows: The proposed approach indicates a thorough understanding of the contract and program goals and the methods, resources, schedules, and other aspects essential to the performance of the program. Weaknesses, if any, are not significant and no deficiencies exist. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

· Fair/Medium Risk – A fair proposal is characterized as follows: The proposed approach indicates an adequate understanding of the contract and program goals and the methods, resources, schedules, and other aspects essential to the performance of the program. There are no deficiencies, but one or more significant weaknesses or a combination of many weaknesses exist that increase the risk of unsuccessful performance. The risk of unsuccessful performance is medium.

· Marginal/High Risk – A marginal proposal is characterized as follows: The proposed approach indicates a superficial or vague understanding of the contract and program goals and the methods, resources, schedules, and other aspects essential to the performance of the program. The proposal has multiple significant weaknesses and weaknesses but no deficiencies. The risk of unsuccessful contract performance is high.

· Unsatisfactory/Very High Risk - An unsatisfactory proposal is characterized as follows: The proposed approach indicates a lack of understanding of the contract and program goals and the methods, resources, schedules, and other aspects essential to the performance of the program. One or more deficiencies or a combination of significant weaknesses exist sufficient to indicate a lack of understanding of the requirements. The risk of unsuccessful contract performance is very high.

Past Performance Evaluation Factors

The following adjectival ratings provide a standardized means to evaluate proposals for past performance factors:

Socioeconomic Participation Evaluation Factor

The following adjectival ratings provide a standardized means to evaluate proposals for socioeconomic participation factors:

· Excellent

If a proposal meets the following criteria, it will receive an excellent rating:

The offeror is a small business that is performing greater than 90% of the cost of labor with its own workforce. If the offeror is a small business that also qualifies in the socioeconomic categories of HubZone or SDVOSB, the offeror will receive an Excellent Plus rating.

· Good

If a proposal meets the following criteria, it will receive a good rating:

The offeror is a small business that is performing 51-90% all of the cost of labor with their own staff, and at least 75% of the subcontracted work goes to other small businesses. If the offeror is a small business that also qualifies in the socioeconomic categories of HUBZone or SDVOSB will receive a Good Plus rating.

· Fair

If a proposal meets the following criteria, it will receive a fair rating:

The offeror is a small business that is performing 51-90% of the cost of labor with their own staff, but less than 75% of the subcontracted work goes to other small businesses. If the offeror is a small business that also qualifies in the socioeconomic categories of HUBZone or SDVOSB will receive a Fair Plus rating.

Or

The offeror is other than small and is subcontracting 40-49% of the total cost of labor to small businesses. Other-than-small offerors proposing to exceed the HUD subcontracting goals in the socioeconomic categories of HUBZone or SDVOSB will receive a Fair Plus rating.

· Marginal

If a proposal meets the following criteria, it will receive a marginal rating:

The offeror is other than small and is subcontracting less than 40% of the total cost of labor to small businesses. Other-than-small offerors proposing to exceed the HUD subcontracting goals in the socioeconomic categories of HUBZone or SDVOSB will receive a Marginal Plus rating.

· Unsatisfactory

If a proposal meets the following criteria, it will receive an unsatisfactory rating:

The offeror fails to submit a socio-economic participation plan that reflects that the offeror will perform at least 50% of the total cost of labor.

The offeror fails to submit compliant letters of commitment for subcontractors/teaming partners that are proposed to perform more than 10% of the total cost of labor to perform the requirements.

The offeror fails to address the factor.

Definitions

In an effort to ensure that during the evaluation process all Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) members are consistently using the terms “strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies,” the definitions below will be used for evaluation purposes.

· STRENGTH – The proposal demonstrates capability, expertise, or knowledge which greatly increases the likelihood of the offeror’s successful contract performance.

· WEAKNESS – A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

· SIGNIFICANT WEAKNESS – A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

· DEFICIENCY – A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

APR 2019