Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 SAM posting.pdf

U.S. Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Prisons Administration Division National Acquisitions Section Washington, D.C. 20534

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2

Evaluation—Commercial Products and Commercial Services

Enterprise First Step Act (FSA) Time Credit Management Solution

1. General

This addendum supplements FAR 52.212-2, Evaluation—Commercial Products and Commercial Services. In the event of a conflict between FAR 52.212-2 and this addendum, this addendum shall govern.

The Government will evaluate proposals using a best-value tradeoff process. Award will be made to the responsible Offeror whose proposal represents the best value to the Government, considering the evaluation factors identified below.

2. Basis for Award

The Government intends to award a single Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) contract resulting from this solicitation.

Award may be made without discussions. Therefore, Offerors are encouraged to submit their best proposal initially.

The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined to be in the Government's best interest.

System updates may lag policy updates. The System for Award Management (SAM) may continue to require entities to complete representations based on provisions that are not included in agency solicitations, including FAR 52.223-22, Public Disclosure of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Reduction Goals—Representation, and paragraph (t) of FAR 52.212-3, Offeror Representations and Certifications—Commercial Products and Commercial Services. The Government will not consider or use these representations in the evaluation of proposals.

3. Evaluation Factors

Proposals will be evaluated using the following factors, listed in descending order of importance:

1. Solution Capability and Implementation Approach

Administration Division

2. Management Approach and Key Personnel

3. Past Performance

4. Price

Factors 1, 2, and 3 are the non-price factors.

When combined, the non-price factors are significantly more important than Price. As the differences among competing proposals under the non-price factors become less significant, Price may become a more significant consideration in the best-value tradeoff decision.

The Government will evaluate Factors 1 and 2 using the adjectival ratings identified in Section 7 of this addendum. Past Performance will be evaluated using the confidence ratings identified in Section 8.

Price will not receive an adjectival rating.

4. Factor 1 – Solution Capability and Implementation Approach

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposed commercial enterprise software solution and implementation approach demonstrate the capability to satisfy the requirements of the solicitation, Performance Work Statement (PWS), and applicable attachments.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror's approach to enhancing and modernizing the Bureau's existing Enterprise First Step Act (FSA) Time Credit Management Solution. Where the Offeror proposes replacement of all or portions of the existing solution, the Government will evaluate the rationale for the proposed replacement, anticipated benefits, implementation considerations, transition requirements, associated risks, and the extent to which the proposed approach improves overall capability, maintainability, security, scalability, operational efficiency, or lifecycle value.

The evaluation will consider, as applicable:

• Overall understanding of the Government's requirements.

• Overall capability and maturity of the proposed commercial enterprise solution.

• Approach to assessing, enhancing, and modernizing the existing solution.

• Rationale and approach for replacement of existing solution components, if proposed.

Administration Division

• Demonstrated experience implementing or modernizing commercial enterprise software solutions supporting complex statutory, regulatory, or policy-driven business processes.

• Demonstrated subject matter expertise in Federal criminal sentencing, sentence computation, and First Step Act (FSA) Time Credit administration sufficient to successfully configure and implement the Government's requirements.

• Demonstrated ability to translate Government-approved statutory, regulatory, sentencing, and policy requirements into configurable business rules, workflows, calculations, and automated decision logic.

• Capability to implement Government-approved Federal sentencing requirements and First Step Act (FSA) Time Credit administration through configurable business rules and automated decision logic.

• Business Rules Management capabilities.

• Configuration flexibility.

• Workflow management capabilities.

• Automated First Step Act Time Credit calculation capabilities.

• Auditability and traceability.

• Reporting, dashboard, and analytics capabilities.

• System integration approach.

• Cybersecurity capabilities.

• Scalability, maintainability, and long-term sustainability.

• Testing and validation methodology.

• Training and knowledge transfer.

• Operations, maintenance, technical support, and sustainment approach.

• Continuous improvement and modernization approach.

• Identification and mitigation of implementation and operational risks.

• Proposed commercial value-added capabilities.

Administration Division

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposed commercial solution minimizes the need for custom software development by utilizing configurable commercial functionality capable of supporting Government-approved statutory, regulatory, policy, and operational changes whenever commercially supported functionality is available.

The Government will also evaluate the Offeror's ability to provide a mature commercial solution that minimizes implementation and operational risk while maximizing capability, configurability, maintainability, security, operational support, and the ability to accommodate future Government-approved statutory, regulatory, policy, and operational changes through configuration rather than software redevelopment whenever practicable.

Because successful performance requires specialized functional expertise in addition to enterprise software capability, the Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror demonstrates an understanding of Federal criminal sentencing, sentence computation, and First Step Act (FSA) Time Credit administration and the ability to accurately implement Government-approved statutory, regulatory, sentencing, and policy requirements within the proposed commercial solution.

5. Factor 2 – Management Approach and Key Personnel

The Government will evaluate the Offeror's management approach and its ability to successfully manage and perform the requirements of the contract.

The evaluation will consider:

• Overall program management approach.

• Organizational structure.

• Staffing strategy.

• Qualifications and experience of proposed Key Personnel.

• Organizational experience supporting comparable enterprise implementations and modernization efforts.

• Risk management processes.

• Quality assurance approach.

• Configuration and release management approach.

Administration Division

• Business Rules governance.

• Modernization and change governance.

• Communication and coordination with Government stakeholders.

• Knowledge transfer approach.

• Transition planning.

The Government will evaluate the qualifications, experience, and demonstrated capabilities of the proposed Key Personnel against the requirements identified in Attachment 4 – Key Personnel Requirements.

The Government will also evaluate the extent to which the Offeror demonstrates organizational capability and experience implementing, modernizing, operating, and sustaining commercial enterprise solutions utilizing configurable business rules, workflow automation, automated decision logic, enterprise reporting, secure system integration, and software supporting complex statutory, regulatory, or policy-driven operational environments.

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposed management approach supports efficient contract execution, effective Government-contractor communication, continuity of operations, knowledge transfer, successful transition, and reduction of overall performance risk.

6. Factor 3 – Past Performance

The Government will evaluate the relevance and quality of the Offeror's recent past performance to assess the Government's confidence in the Offeror's ability to successfully perform the requirements of this solicitation.

The Government will consider the similarity of prior efforts to the scope, size, complexity, technical requirements, and operational environment of this acquisition.

Greater relevance may be assigned to efforts involving:

• Commercial enterprise software implementation or modernization.

• Configurable business rules.

• Workflow automation.

• Automated decision logic.

Administration Division

• Enterprise case management.

• Criminal justice or corrections.

• Sentence computation.

• First Step Act administration.

• Statutory or regulatory decision logic.

• Secure enterprise system integration.

• Highly regulated Government or commercial operational environments.

• Enterprise operations, maintenance, and sustainment.

The Government may consider past performance information obtained from:

• Past performance information submitted by the Offeror.

• Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS).

• Other Government records.

• Customer references.

• Other sources reasonably available to the Government.

The Government is not limited to the past performance information provided by the Offeror.

If an Offeror does not have a record of relevant past performance or if past performance information is not available, the Offeror will receive a Neutral Confidence rating. Neutral Confidence shall not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably.

7. Technical Evaluation Ratings

Factors 1 and 2 will be evaluated using the following adjectival ratings:

Rating Definition

Outstanding Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Administration Division

Good Proposal demonstrates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Acceptable Proposal demonstrates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements and meets the solicitation requirements. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and/or understanding of the requirements. The proposal contains one or more weaknesses or significant weaknesses that may be correctable. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation and contains one or more deficiencies and/or presents an unacceptable risk of unsuccessful performance. The proposal is not awardable.

The adjectival rating reflects the Government's overall assessment of the proposal under the applicable factor and is not determined through a mechanical counting of strengths, weaknesses, significant strengths, significant weaknesses, or deficiencies.

8. Past Performance Confidence Ratings

Past Performance will be evaluated using the following confidence ratings:

Rating Definition

Substantial Confidence

Based on the Offeror's recent and relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence

Based on the Offeror's recent and relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Administration Division

Neutral Confidence

No recent or relevant performance record is available, or the Offeror's performance record is so limited that no meaningful confidence assessment can reasonably be made. This rating will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably.

Limited Confidence

Based on the Offeror's recent and relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the Offeror's recent and relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

In assigning the confidence rating, the Government may consider both the relevance of the prior effort and the quality of the Offeror's performance.

9. Evaluation Findings

For purposes of evaluating Factors 1 and 2, the Government may identify strengths, significant strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies.

Significant Strength: An aspect of a proposal that appreciably exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a manner that will be considerably advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Strength: An aspect of a proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a manner that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Significant Weakness: A flaw 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 that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

Administration Division

The Government's evaluation will consider the substance and significance of identified findings rather than the numerical quantity of findings.

10. Optional Government Solution Demonstration

At the Government's sole discretion, the Government may request one or more Offerors to participate in a solution demonstration, oral presentation, or similar technical exchange after receipt of proposals.

A solution demonstration is not a separate evaluation factor and is not automatically required as part of the evaluation process.

If the Government elects to conduct a solution demonstration and intends to use information obtained from the demonstration in the evaluation, the Government will provide participating Offerors with applicable instructions, scenarios, procedures, and information regarding how the demonstration will be considered in the evaluation.

A demonstration may include capabilities such as:

• Configuration of Government-approved Federal sentencing and First Step Act (FSA) business rules.

• Implementation of Government-approved policy changes through system configuration.

• Automated First Step Act Time Credit calculations.

• Configurable workflows.

• Business rule version management.

• Auditability and traceability of business rule execution and calculation results.

• Operational reporting, executive dashboards, and analytics.

• Administrative configuration capabilities.

• User administration and role-based security controls.

• Secure integration capabilities with Government systems.

• Overall usability, operational effectiveness, and administrative efficiency.

Administration Division

A demonstration or technical presentation shall not permit an Offeror to materially revise its proposal unless the Government subsequently conducts discussions or otherwise permits proposal revisions in accordance with the solicitation and applicable FAR requirements.

11. Factor 4 – Price

The Government will evaluate proposed prices for completeness and reasonableness.

The Government will evaluate the Total Evaluated Price based on the pricing structure established in the solicitation.

The Government may consider, as applicable:

• CLIN and unit pricing.

• Extended prices.

• Commercial software licensing or subscription costs.

• Recurring software costs.

• Implementation services.

• Operations, maintenance, and sustainment costs.

• Travel and other authorized direct costs, where applicable.

• Pricing assumptions.

• Optional commercial capabilities, if included in the evaluated price.

• Overall price over the evaluated period of performance.

The Government may use one or more price analysis techniques authorized by the FAR to determine whether proposed prices are fair and reasonable.

Price will not receive an adjectival rating.

The Total Evaluated Price will be considered in the best-value tradeoff decision.

Administration Division

12. Responsibility Determination

Prior to award, the Government will determine whether the apparent successful Offeror is responsible in accordance with applicable FAR requirements.

The responsibility determination is separate from the comparative evaluation of proposals.

The Government may consider, among other matters:

• Financial resources and capability.

• Ability to comply with the required performance schedule.

• Performance record.

• Record of integrity and business ethics.

• Necessary organization, experience, accounting and operational controls, and technical skills.

• Necessary equipment, facilities, and other resources.

• Eligibility for award under applicable laws and regulations.

13. Best-Value Tradeoff

The Government will perform an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors identified in this solicitation.

Award will not necessarily be made to the Offeror proposing the lowest price or to the Offeror receiving the highest adjectival rating under any individual non-price factor.

The Government will compare the relative benefits, advantages, disadvantages, and risks of competing proposals in determining which proposal represents the best overall value.

The Source Selection Authority (SSA) will determine whether additional technical merit, specialized subject matter expertise, reduced implementation or operational risk, enhanced configurability, superior operational capability, improved security, greater maintainability, improved sustainment, or other evaluated discriminators offered by a higher-priced proposal warrant payment of the associated price premium.

Administration Division

The Government may place greater value on proposals demonstrating mature commercial functionality, effective enhancement or modernization of the existing solution, minimal reliance on custom software development, strong configurability, reduced implementation risk, and superior long-term maintainability and sustainability when those evaluated benefits are determined to justify an associated price premium.

As the evaluated differences among competing proposals under the non-price factors become less significant, Price may become a more significant discriminator in the best-value tradeoff.

The Government reserves the right to select the proposal that represents the best overall value to the Government in accordance with the evaluation criteria established by this solicitation.