Section_M_-_Evaluation_Factors_for_Award_tracked_changes_amendment_0002.pdf

M.1 BEST VALUE PROCUREMENT - RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF TECHNICAL

VERSUS PRICE FACTORS:

(a) The Government will make an award to the responsible offeror whose offer conforms to the solicitation and is most advantageous to the Government (i.e., that which represents the best value to the Government), cost or price and other factors considered.

(b) While the price factor has no numerical weight or adjectival rating, it is a criterion in the overall evaluation of proposals. Furthermore, the proposed cost or price must be considered reasonable and must reflect the proposed technical approach

(b) The Government may award a contract to other than the lowest priced offer. In the event that two or more offers are considered technically equivalent, the evaluated cost or price will be of primary importance in determining the proposal most advantageous to the Government.

Offerors are cautioned that award may not necessarily be made to the lowest price(s) offered.

The Government intends to award without discussion. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if later determined by the Contracting Officer to be necessary.

While the Government is more concerned with obtaining superior Financial Management Systems Information Technology Support Services (FMS-ITSS), the Government will not make an award at a significantly higher overall price to achieve moderately superior services. As non-price factors approach equality, price will become a more significant factor.

M.2 EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

PBGC will use the evaluation process described in the following paragraphs for proposals received in response to the FMS-ITSS solicitation.

The technical factors, Factor 1 – Approach and Understanding of Requirements, Factor 2 – Key Personnel, Factor 3 – Staffing and Management Approach, Factor 4 – Past Performance, will be evaluated on an adjectival scale. Small Business Participation will be evaluated on a pass-fail basis. The combined relative merit of the technical evaluation factors and subfactors will be significantly more important than price in the selection of the contractor.

The following evaluation factors/subfactors are listed in descending order of importanceequally important.

Factor 1 – Approach and Understanding of Requirements Factor 2 – Key Personnel Factor 3 – Staffing and Management Approach Factor 4 – Past Performance

Commented [SD1]: Moved the start of paragraph (b)

Commented [SD2]: Redundant to the previous paragraph

Commented [SD3]: Redundant to M.5

Commented [SD4]: Q&A #89

M.2.1 VOLUME I – EVALUATION OF TECHNICAL PROPOSAL:

All Parts of the Offeror’s Technical Volume will each be evaluated based on Factor 1 - Approach and Understanding of Requirements, Factor 2 – Key Personnel, and Factor 3 – Staffing and Management Approach below. Only Part A – IDIQ Response will be evaluated based on Factor 4 – Past Performance below. Past performance will not be evaluated for the TOs.

Note: The Statements of Objectives and Pricing schedules for TO#1, TO # 2 and the Statement of Objectives for the Sample Development Task Scenario is also provided in Section J)

Factor 1 - Approach and Understanding of Requirements

The Government will evaluate the technical approach factor based on the clarity and completeness of the approach and the degree to which the proposal accomplishes the requirements defined in the IDIQ, Sample Development Task Scenario, Task Order (TO) #1, and Task Order (TO) #2. The Government will evaluate if the technical approach is likely to result in the efficient and innovative completion of the work. Specific to TO #1, the Government will evaluate the transition plan. Specific to TO #1, TO #2, and the Sample Development Task Scenario, the Government will evaluate each PWS, QASP and Quality Control plan based on the content of the submission as specified in the Statements of Objectives for TO #1, TO #2, and Sample Development Task Scenario.

Factor 2 – Key Personnel

The Offeror’s proposed personnel for the IDIQ, TO #1, TO #2, and the Sample Development Task Scenario will be evaluated to determine whether they meet the minimum education and experience requirements. PBGC will evaluate the experience and skills of all the proposed personnel in successfully managing and delivering the proposed IDIQ and Task Order technical approaches. Proposed personnel who exceed the described minimum qualifications and who are already employed by the Offeror shall be rated higher than those who meet the minimum qualifications and/or are not currently employed by the Offeror.

For each person proposed, the offeror shall indicate whether the person is:

(1) Currently employed by the contractor.

(2) Planning to join the company.

(3) A subcontractor; or

(4) Other arrangements have been made.

Letters of commitment are mandatory for proposed individuals that are not currently in the employment of the offeror or subcontractor.

The IDIQ Program Manager will be evaluated based on the qualifications outlined in Section H of the IDIQ RFP.

Commented [SD5]: Random “)”

Factor 3 – Staffing and Management Approach

The Government will evaluate the degree to which the Offeror’s staffing and management approach reflects an effective, efficient, feasible, and practical level of understanding of the operating environment in accomplishing the tasking for the IDIQ TO #1, TO #2, and the Sample Development Task Scenario. The labor categories and requisite experience will be well defined. The staffing plans for Task Orders 1 &2, Sample Development Task Scenario, and the IDIQ should be consistent and represent the most effective and efficient use of resources. The Government will evaluate the degree to which the approach can be accomplished with minimal risk. The Government will evaluate the degree to which the staffing plans make efficient use of resources to meet IDIQ task and task order objectives including balancing resources between TOs. Finally, the management approach will be evaluated on how well it directly supports the technical approach proposed.

The offeror shall demonstrate how its management structure will be flexible and responsive to meeting the requirements. Specifically, the offeror shall:

• Demonstrate how it will maintain flexibility in making work assignments in order to make maximum use of available personnel and skill mix.

• Demonstrate the relationship between the Program Manager and upper management to ensure adequate attention from upper management in resolving problems associated with execution of requirements.

• Delineate proposed organizational and management approaches and organization’s resources, tools and systems intended for the performance of the contract and address the following elements in the proposal for management and organization approach.

• Describe the proposed overall organizational structure that can meet the PBGC’s requirements as defined in Section C.

• The Offeror shall demonstrate the QA framework through the submission of a Quality Assurance Plan. The plan must discuss how the QA function will be operationalized, streamlined and automated using Office 365 processes, perceived business impact, and provide recent and relevant examples of such process application.

• The Offeror’s Performance Management Plan will be evaluated for the technical merits, feasibility and overall quality of the proposed approach to accomplish all aspects of the SOW. Special emphasis will be placed on how the Offeror’s Staffing Plan and Communication Plan will be effectively implemented to achieve objectives as stated throughout the SOW.

Factor 4 - Past Performance (IDIQ Response only)

PBGC is seeking to determine whether each Offeror consistently delivers quality products and/or services in a timely manner with a reasonable degree of customer satisfaction. Therefore, this factor shall be evaluated on the basis of relevant past performance information contained in the proposal as well as information from references provided by the Offeror and from any other reliable source available to the PBGC such as an official past performance database and/or other government and local agencies (e.g. CPARS, PPIRS, FAPIIS,etc.). In accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iii), PBGC will take into consideration past performance information of predecessor companies, key personnel with relevant experience, or subcontractors that will perform critical functions under this Contract.

For teaming, partners’ past performance will be considered the work that the vendor has performed that shows that they have the capability to successfully complete the tasks identified in the solicitation at minimum risk to the government.

The information contained in the proposal shall be used to determine and evaluate the recency and relevancy of the cited past performance reference contracts. Recent past performance is defined as work within the past three (3) years. Relevance is defined as work similar in scope and complexity to the requirements in the SOW. Relevancy also takes into account the period of performance, the contract type and the dollar value of the reference contract.

The Offeror’s past performance will be evaluated using the following factors:

• Quality of products and services as well as technical support provided, including quality of personnel.

• Cost control.

• Timeliness of performance.

• Business relations including problem responsiveness.

• Customer satisfaction.

In the event an Offeror submits more than three references, it will be the government’s prerogative as to which three references will be used for evaluation purposes.

As stipulated under FAR Part 15.3, Offerors without a record of relevant Past Performance or for whom information on Past Performance is not available, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on Past Performance. Thus, Offerors without a record of relevant Past Performance will be given a “Neutral” rating. Past Performance will be evaluated using the Adjectival Rating Scale.

M.3 EVALUATION OF PRICE

Price offers will not be point scored, assigned a numerical weight, nor adjectivally rated. The IDIQ pricing will be evaluated for overall price reasonableness and completeness using the Price Schedule in Section B. The individual labor rates will also be evaluated to assess the reasonableness of the rate. Offerors are cautioned against proposing unrealistically low labor rates or obvious inconsistencies between the reasonableness of the rates across the requested labor categories.

The Task Order One Pricing and Task Order Two Pricing will be used to evaluate the offerors’ proposed prices for the award of the base ID/IQ contract. The Offeror’s Sample Development Task Scenario will not be evaluated for price.

Reasonableness and completeness of the task order price proposals will be based on the labor build up (labor category and rates) to ensure the IDIQ labor categories and rates were used in the development of the pricing for the base and option years.

M.4 EVALUATION OF SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION

M.4.1 Small Business Participation is evaluated in order to support the Government policy that Small Businesses be provided maximum practicable opportunities in Government acquisitions.

The Government will evaluate the degree to which the offeror’s Small Business Participation plan demonstrates the offeror’s commitment to maximizing opportunities for small businesses.

The Government will consider whether the offeror meets or the degree to which it exceeds the Government objective of any single socio-economic category, as well as the number of socio-economic categories that an offeror meets or exceeds.

M.4.2 The Government has established the following objectives for this procurement, based on total contract value:

• Small Business (SB) 23.00%

• Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) 5.00%

• Woman Owned Small Business (WOSB) 5.00%

• HUBZone-Certified Small Business (HUBZone) 0.50%

• Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) 1.00%

M.4.3 The offeror’s proposed percentage of participation (goals) identified in the Contract Participation Matrix will be evaluated against the Governments objective for each socio-economic category.

M.4.4 The Government will verify that the size and socio-economic status for each small business subcontractor identified in the Contract Participation Matrix matches the subcontractors written certification. For HUBZone-certified subcontractors identified in the Contract Participation Matrix, the Government will verify the offerors evidence of HUBZone certification IAW FAR clause 52.219-8(d)(2).

M.4.5 If the socio-economic status claimed in the matrix is not supported by the written certifications, the proposed percentages associated to the subcontractor for any unsupported category will be adjusted to zero. The government will not upwardly adjust the proposed percentages if the Offeror fails to claim credit for all categories. However, failing to claim credit for all categories may be viewed as not maximizing opportunities for small businesses.

M.4.6 The Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror commits to using small businesses in this procurement. An offeror who proposes little to no participation for multiple socio-economic categories may be viewed by the Government as having a lack of commitment to small businesses.

M.4.7 The offeror’s historical small business performance will be evaluated on the probability of compliance with the requirement base on its recent performance record in the area of small business utilization, with specific consideration given to the following:

• Compliance with all terms and conditions of FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns (when required on recent contracts). This shall include timely payments to Small Business subcontractors. If the offeror has no historical information, the proposal will be evaluated without regard to this paragraph.

• Compliance with all terms and conditions of FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan (when required on the recent contracts). If the offeror has no historical information, the proposal will be evaluated without regard to this paragraph.

• Actual small business utilization compared to small business subcontracting goals identified in the approved subcontracting plan for each recent contract that included a subcontracting plan. Offeror compliance with reporting requirements including Individual Subcontracting Reports (ISR)/Summary Subcontracting Reports (SSR).

Offeror achievement on each individual goal stated within the subcontracting plan including good faith effort if the goal was not achieved. If the offeror has no historical information, the proposal will be evaluated without regard to this paragraph.

M.4.8 Additional documentation and explanations submitted in response to L.4.4, second paragraph, may be considered as part of the offerors commitment to small business.

M.5 AWARD ON INITIAL PROPOSALS

Pursuant to FAR clause 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors – Competitive Acquisition, the Government reserves the right to award the contract without discussions, based on initial offers.

M.6 EXCHANGES WITH OFFERORS

Should award be made without discussions, the PBGC may hold limited exchanges defined as clarifications Pursuant to FAR 15.306, to give offeror’s an opportunity to clarify minor or clerical errors. The PBGC may hold limited exchanges with offerors before establishment of the competitive range.

M.7 COMPETITIVE RANGE DETERMINATION

Pursuant to FAR Part 15.306(c), if discussions are held, the Contracting Officer shall establish a competitive range of the most highly rated proposals. If the number of most highly rated proposals exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range. The PBGC will provide the Offerors in the competitive range a list of its proposal’s weaknesses. All Offerors will be required to respond to these weaknesses in writing and provide final proposals.