Attachment 02 Instructions to Offerors.docx

HQ042324QE020

DFAS-CO CART Services

INSTRUCTIONS TO VENDORS/EVALUATION FACTORS

Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) is issuing a Request for Quotation (RFQ) for the services specified in the attached Performance Work Statement (PWS). Quotation evaluation will be conducted in accordance with FAR part 13, with the intention to award a contract to one vendor. Quotations must be received by email to Brent Lehrke at brent.l.lehrke.civ@mail.mil by 2 p.m. ET, 9/27/2024.

Questions regarding this solicitation are due to brent.l.lehrke.civ@mail.mil by 2 p.m. ET 9/23/2024. Questions will be answered at the discretion of the Contracting Officer.

2. SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS:

Factor 1 – Technical Approach Describe your technical approach for meeting PWS requirements. Include a description of the following:

1. A brief explanation of how many local certified interpreters are available to support onsite requests for the DFAS Columbus location.

2. A brief explanation of how many virtual certified interpreters are available to support virtual requests.

3. A brief explanation of how current and new interpreters are vetted and assessed in the hiring processes.

Factor 2 – Past Performance

Factor 3 – Price Provide a Labor Hour-price for the base year and option periods. The vendor’s price quote shall identify the number of hours and fully-burdened hourly rates for each labor category, and any materials or supplies required to perform the PWS. Rates shall be equal to or lower than the vendor’s commerical rates. Significant discounts are strongly encouraged and shall be identified in the vendor’s price quote.

3. EVALUATION:

The Government intends to evaluate quotations and award a Labor Hour contract based upon the vendor’s proposed technical approach, the vendor’s past performance and price based on initial quotation. Therefore, the vendor’s initial quotation should contain the best terms from a pricing and technical standpoint.

The award shall be made to the responsible vendor whose quotation represents the best value tradeoff to the Government. The Government may reject any or all quotations if such action is in the public interest; accept a quotation other than the lowest priced quotation; and waive informalities and minor irregularities in quotations received.

3.1. Order of Importance

Factor 1 – Technical Approach is equal to Factor 2 – Past Performance. Combined, Factors 1 and 2 are more important than Factor 3 – Price. However, the importance of price will increase if quotations are rated and considered essentially equal in terms of non-price factors.

3.2. Definitions

The following evaluation definitions are provided to assist the evaluator(s):

Deficiency: A material failure of a quotation to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a quotation that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

Weakness: A flaw in the quotation that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. A significant weakness in the quotation is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Strength: A proposed method or technique in the quotation that exceeds the solicitation requirements.

Factor 2 – Past Performance will be evaluated in the following manner:

The Government shall evaluate recent and relevant performance information on vendors based on the contracts provided by the vendor and Questionnaires received. The Government may seek, and consider in the evaluation, data independently obtained from other government and commercial sources, including databases such as CPARS. Recent means contracts performed or completed within three years from the quotation due date. For contracts that are currently being performed, the contractor must have performed at least six months of service for the contract to be considered. Relevant means similar in scope and complexity to the solicited work.

Projects performed by subcontractors or joint venture partners may be considered relevant provided the information submitted by the contractor demonstrates that the subcontractor or joint venture partner played a major role and critical role in successfully performing the project. Relevant projects performed by the contractor as a prime contractor will be weighed more heavily in the overall evaluation. Contracts performed for the Department of Defense, depending on relevancy, may be considered more significant in the evaluation.

The government reserves the right to give greater consideration to information on those contracts deemed most relevant to the effort described in this solicitation, see Table below:

Relevancy Table

The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to allow the government to assess the contractor’s ability to perform the effort described in the solicitation, based on the recency, relevancy and quality of performance on the quoter’s past performance efforts. The assessment process will result in an overall performance confidence rating in accordance with Table 2. Contractors with no relevant past or present performance history shall receive the rating of “Neutral.”

Table 2

High Confidence: Based on the contractor’s performance record, the government has high confidence the contractor will successfully perform the required effort.

Substantial Confidence: Based on the contractor’s performance record, the government has substantial confidence the contractor will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence: Based on the contractor’s performance record, the government has confidence the contractor will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence: Performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

Limited Confidence: Based on the contractor’s performance record, substantial doubt exists that the contractor will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence: Based on the contractor’s performance record, extreme doubt exists that the contractor will successfully perform the required effort.

3.4. Factor 3 – Price

Price reasonableness determinations will be in accordance with FAR 13.106-3(a). The government will evaluate whether the proposed level of effort and labor mix are appropriate for the requirements of the PWS to ensure successful performance; and whether the proposed rates per hour are reasonable.

The government has included 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services. For evaluation purposes, the Government will consider the price for the six-month Option to Extend Services as equal to half the price of the last option period quoted. The total evaluated price will include the base period and all options including the Option to Extend Services. Evaluation of options will not obligate the government to exercise the options. Attachment 3 – Past Performance Questionnaire

• Use template to request past and present performance questionnaire.