Attachment 2 - Instructions to Offerors .pdf

INFORMATION TO OFFERORS (ITO) AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR PROPOSAL

PREPARATION

1.0 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

(a) This section of the Information to Offerors (ITO) provides general guidance for preparing proposals as well as specific instructions on the format and content of the proposal.

The offeror’s proposal must include all data and information requested by the ITO and must be submitted in accordance with these instructions. Any offeror who submits an incomplete package may be considered non-responsive. The offeror shall be compliant with the requirements stated in the Statement of Work (SOW) and Model Task Order. Non-conformance with the instructions provided in the ITO may result in unfavorable proposal evaluation or rejection of the proposal.

(b) The proposal shall be clear, concise, and shall include sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiating the validity of stated claims. The proposal should not simply rephrase or restate the Government’s requirements, but rather shall provide convincing rationale to address how the offeror intends to meet these requirements. Offerors shall assume that the Government has no prior knowledge of their facilities and experience and will base its evaluation on the information presented in the offeror’s proposal.

(c) Elaborate brochures or documentation, binding, detailed artwork, or other embellishments are unnecessary and are not desired.

(d) The offeror shall make a clear statement in the task order documentation volume that the proposal is valid for one hundred and twenty (120) days.

(e) In accordance with FAR Subpart 4.8, Government Contract Files, the Government will retain one copy of all unsuccessful proposals. Unless the offeror requests otherwise, the Government will destroy extra copies of such unsuccessful proposal.

1.1 GENERAL INFORMATION

1.1.1. Point of Contact

Emily Moss, Contract Specialist (CS) and Joaquin Tucker, Contracting Officer (CO), are the main point of contact for this acquisition. Address any questions or concerns you may have to the CS/CO. Written requests for clarification may be sent to Emily Moss and Joaquin Tucker at the following email addresses identified below:

Emily Moss, Contract Specialist egmoss@fbi.gov

Joaquin Tucker, Contracting Officer

Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors or Respondents mailto:egmoss@fbi.gov jjtucker@fbi.gov

1.1.2. Request for Discounts/Additional Price Reductions

The Government is hereby requesting maximum additional discounts and price reductions for this contract and any task order.

1.1.3. Contract Type

Following FAR Part 12, FAR Part 15, and FAR Part 16.5 procedures, this is a Firm Fixed Price (FFP) Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract, utilizing Fixed Price (FP) rates under a series of Contract Line Item Numbers (CLIN). The Contractor will be paid the stated Fixed-Price rates upon delivery and acceptance of units of services. The Government intends to award one single-award IDIQ and one task order for this contract.

1.1.4. Incurred Expenses

The Government is not responsible for any costs incurred or associated with preparation and submission of a proposal in response to this solicitation.

1.1.5. Discrepancies

If an offeror believes that the requirements in this solicitation contain an error, omission, or are otherwise unsound, the offeror shall immediately notify the Contracting Officer in writing with supporting rationale.

1.1.6. Teaming/Partnering/Subcontractors Offerors

If the offer is based on a teaming/partnering/subcontractor relationship, the offeror shall provide a copy of the teaming/partnership agreement and validate that any party is eligible for contract award through www.sam.gov. The agreement shall include information which identifies the responsibilities for each entity under this IDIQ.

1.1.7 Minimum/Maximum Amounts

The minimum guaranteed amount is $50,000.00. The maximum contract ceiling amount is $110,000,000.00.

1.2. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

1.2.1 Question & Answer

Questions should be submitted in writing by electronic mail to the Contract Specialist/Contracting Officer in Microsoft (MS) Word format for easy compilation of all questions and answers.

Answers, statements, or agreements in response to written questions will be issued in a formal amendment to the solicitation. Questions are due electronically by 12:00pm CST on June 22, 2020.

1.2.2 Intention to Bid

All vendors shall send an email to Emily Moss at egmoss@fbi.gov indicating whether or not the vendor intends to submit a proposal in response to this solicitation by 12:00pm CST on July 3, 2020.

1.2.3 Final Submissions

All final proposals must be received by Emily Moss at egmoss@fbi.gov and Joaquin Tucker at jjtucker@fbi.gov by 5:00pm CST on July 10, 2020. This shall include electronic submissions.

mailto:kdcastor@fbi.gov mailto:jjtucker@fbi.gov

1.3 ORGANIZATION/NUMBER OF COPIES/PAGE LIMITS

The offeror shall prepare the proposal as defined in this table, all of which shall be within the required page limits and with the number of copies as specified in Table I-1. The attachments identified in the table shall be sent back electronically as set forth in the Proposal Organization Table (Table I-1 below). The titles and contents of the volumes shall be. Although Volume I encompasses four factors, it should be submitted as one volume for a total page limit of 30 pages.

The Small Business Participation is unlimited and does not count towards the 30-page limit. The contents of each proposal volume are described in the ITO paragraph as noted in the table below.

Table I-1: Proposal Organization

VOLUME

ITO

PARAGRAPH

NUMBER

VOLUME TITLE COPIES PAGE LIMIT

I 2.0 Technical Capability 1 Electronic 12

I 2.0 Management Approach 1 Electronic 12

I 2.0 Past Performance/Experience 1 Electronic

6 (Limit is for Experience

Narratives, PPQ are unlimited)

I 2.0 Small Business Participation 1 Electronic None

II 3.0 Model Task Order Documentation 1 Electronic None

II 3.0 OCI 1 Electronic None II 3.0 SF-1449 1 Electronic None

II 6.0 KMPL 1 Electronic None

II 6.0 ARQ 1 Electronic None

III 4.0 Price 1 Electronic None

1.3.1. Page Limitations

Page limitations shall be treated as maximums. If exceeded, the excess pages will not be read or considered in the evaluation of the proposal. Documents that are incorporated or referenced in the proposal will be included in the page limit calculation and disregarded if the page limits including attached, referenced or incorporated documents are exceeded.

1.3.2. Cost or Pricing Information

All cost or pricing information shall be addressed ONLY in the Price and Task Order Documentation volumes.

1.3.3. Cross Referencing

To the greatest extent possible, each volume shall be written on a stand-alone basis so that its contents may be evaluated with a minimum of cross referencing to other volumes of the proposal.

Information required for proposal evaluation which is not found in its designated volume will be assumed to have been omitted from the proposal.

Cross referencing within a proposal volume is permitted where its use would conserve space without impairing clarity.

The offeror shall provide a cross reference matrix indicating, by ITO, SOW, and/or specification paragraph number, the corresponding proposal paragraph in that section which addresses the referenced item.

1.3.4. Indexing

Each volume shall contain a more detailed table of contents to delineate the subparagraphs with that volume. Tab indexing shall be used to identify sections, i.e. Factor 1, Factor 2, etc.

1.3.5. Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms

Each volume shall contain a glossary of all abbreviations and acronyms used, with an explanation for each. Glossaries do not count against the page limitations for their respective volumes.

1.4 ELECTRONIC COPIES

Indicate on each submission the volume number and title. Use separate attachments to permit rapid location of all portions, including exhibits, annexes, and attachments, if any. The electronic copies shall be submitted in a format readable by Microsoft (MS) Word 2016.

1.5 DISTRIBUTION

All electronic submissions must be emailed to the following Points of Contact:

Emily Moss, Contract Specialist egmoss@fbi.gov

Joaquin Tucker, Contracting Officer jjtucker@fbi.gov

1.6 SCHEDULE

The following is the anticipated schedule for the HRD Medical Exams source selection:

Volumes I, II, III, IV Received July 10, 2020

NLT 5:00PM CST

Contract Award September 1, 2020

1.7 DISCUSSIONS

The Government reserves the right to enter or not enter into discussions with Offeror’s regarding this procurement.

mailto:kdcastor@fbi.gov

2.0 VOLUME I – TECHNICAL CAPABILITY /MANAGEMENT APPROACH /PAST

PERFORMANCE/SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION

2.1 GENERAL

The Technical Capability/Management Approach/Past Performance/Small Business Participation volume should be specific and complete. Legibility, clarity and coherence are very important.

Your responses will be evaluated against the Technical Capability/Management Approach/Past Performance/Small Business Participation factors defined in the section entitled “Evaluation Factors for Award.” Using the instructions provided below, provide as specifically as possible your proposed methodology for satisfying these factors and subfactors. All the requirements specified in the solicitation are mandatory. By your proposal submission, you are representing that your firm will perform all the requirements in the solicitation. It is not necessary or desirable for you to tell us so in your proposal. Do not merely reiterate the objectives or reformulate the requirements specified in the solicitation.

2.2 FORMAT AND SPECIFIC CONTENT

2.2.1. Technical Capability/Management Approach/Past Performance/Small Business Participation In the Technical Capability/Management Approach/Past Performance/Small Business Participation volume, address your proposed approach to meeting the requirements of each factor.

2.2.2. Volume Organization

The Technical/Management/Past Performance/Small Business Participation volume shall be organized according to the following general outline:

(1) Table of Contents

(2) List of Tables and Drawings

(3) Glossary

(4) Cross Reference Matrix

(5) Factor One: Technical Capability – Technical Approach

(6) Factor Two: Management Capability – Management Approach

(7) Factor Three: Past Performance/Experience

(8) Factor Four: Small Business Participation

NOTE: The Cover Page, Table of Contents, List of Tables and Drawings, Glossary, Cross Reference Document and Letter of Intent/Commitment Letter are excluded from the 30-page limitation for Volume One.

2.2.3. Factor One: Technical Approach

The Offeror shall submit a Technical Approach narrative (12-page limit) that demonstrates the Offeror’s understanding of the work outlined in the Statement of Work (SOW) and their ability to successfully execute their approach to achieve this work. The Offeror shall also include a Quality Control Plan that describes the Offeror’s ability to ensure quality performance as detailed in the FBI’s Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan / Performance Requirements Summary – and ensure quality performance at all fifty - six (56) Field Office locations and corresponding list of Resident Agencies (RA).

2.2.4. Factor Two: Management Approach

The Offeror shall provide a Management Approach narrative of no more than twelve (12) pages that describes the Offeror’s plan to staff and manage all fifty – six (56) Field Office (FO) locations and Resident Agencies (RA) locations with highly qualified Providers and then maintain full coverage for all fifty – six (56) FO locations and potential RA locations. The Offeror must be able to provide coverage at all fifty – six (56) FO locations and it is desired that coverage be provided near all identified RA’s as listed in Attachment 9 – Locations. The Offeror shall provide a management approach for managing the requirement, costs, deliverables, and personnel. The Offeror shall include in the 12- page limit the resume (2- page limit) of the Offeror’s lead project manager for the effort. The resume shall document their respective expertise, certifications, all relevant education and demonstrated successful experience performing their role on a project of similar scope and complexity as this effort. A Letter of Intent/One-Year Commitment Letter shall be included for this key personnel only.

2.2.5. Factor Three: Past Performance/Experience

Using the attached template (Attachment 11), provide three (3) Relevant Experience Narratives of not more than two (2) pages each that describes the Offeror’s experience providing support to similar size and scope requirements to Government agencies (Federal, State or Local) and submit the attached Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ) (Attachment 12) to the Government official responsible for each of the three (3) Relevant Experience Narratives. The described Past Experiences must have been performed within the past 7 years. The Offeror is responsible for ensuring that Point of Contact’s (POC) and Alternate Point of Contact’s (APOC) are reachable and that all information listed in the PPQ is current and valid. The Government reserves the right to contact any reference or use any other relative past performance information deemed appropriate by the Contracting Office. Any PPQ submitted that does not match the reference will not be contacted and will be considered incomplete.

2.2.6 Factor Four: Small Business Participation

Subcontracting Plan Prime contractors shall submit a subcontracting plan, which includes dollar percentage goals for subcontracting opportunities. The Subcontracting Plan is to be completed by organizations classified as anything other than a small business and must follow all requirements as set forth in FAR Part 19.704

Small Business Participation Offerors shall submit information which addresses how they expect to include small businesses in the performance of the contract as. All offerors shall:

a) Identify the extent to which Small Businesses (SBs), Veteran-Owned Small Businesses (VOSBs), Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Businesses (SDVOSBs), HUBZone Small Businesses (HUBZones), Small Disadvantaged Businesses (SDBs) and Woman- Owned Small Businesses (WOSBs) will be utilized in the performance of the contract.;

b) Identify the names of the SBs, VOSBs, SDVOBs, HUBZones, SDBs or WOSBs who will participate on the contract, the products and/or services to be performed and the estimated total dollar amount of such work;

c) Address the extent of commitment to utilize the team members in performance of the contract (for example, length of the relationship, whether there is a written agreement, and key elements of the agreement); and

d) Provide prior performance information, if any on no more than three (3) contracts that were performed within three years from the proposal submission date which included FAR clause 52.219-8, “Utilization of Small Business Concerns” and/or FAR clause 52.219-9, “Small Business Subcontracting plan” and show the actual performance or compliance with these FAR clauses. Offeror’s Prior Performance Information shall include the following:

1) Name of the contracting activity

2) Contract number

3) Total contract value

4) List major subcontractor(s) involved

5) The role(s) of the subcontractor(s) involved

6) The applicable goals and actual performance (dollars and percentages) for subcontracting with the types of small business concerns listed FAR 52.219-9

7) A Subcontracting Report for Individual Contracts (ISR), Summary Subcontract

Report (SSR) from the electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS) for that contract. If the SSR forms are not available for the referenced contracts, the contractor shall submit a detailed explanation as to why they are not available and submit any other official documentation of actual accomplishments of the goals established under the subcontracting requirements for the referenced contracts.

3.0 VOLUME II – ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The Offeror shall submit an Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) mitigation plan for themselves and proposed subcontractors. The OCI mitigation plan will not be evaluated as part of mission suitability. However, before being eligible to receive an award, the Offeror’s OCI plan (including mitigation plans for any identified OCIs) shall be deemed acceptable by the Government.

Description of Potential Conflict. The Government is acquiring support for strategic realignment program support services. This may include change management, organizational design, recruitment and hiring initiatives, and administrative support. This could give rise to an impaired objectivity OCI, which occurs where a contractor’s work on one federal contract renders it potentially unable to provide impartial advice or services under another federal contract. For this requirement, the Contractor’s or its teaming partners’ work on other contracts for which contract personnel or it’s teaming partners are currently engaged with could potentially be unable to provide impartial program management analysis and recommendations to the FBI.

Responsibility of Offeror.

(1) Applying the principles of FAR Subpart 9.5, each Offeror shall assess whether there is an organizational conflict of interest associated with the proposal it submits. The Offeror must explain the actions it intends to use to resolve any organizational conflicts of interest it finds in the Government ‘s assessment and its own assessment.

(2) Offerors are encouraged to inform the Contracting Officer of any potential conflicts of interest, including those involving contracts with other Government organizations, in their proposal. The contracting officer will use this information to determine whether resolution of those conflicts will be required.

(3) If the Offeror‘s proposed action to resolve an organizational conflict of interest is not acceptable, the Contracting Officer will notify the Offeror, providing the reasons why its proposed resolution is not considered acceptable and allow the Offeror a reasonable opportunity to respond before making a final decision on the organizational conflict of interest.

Representation. By submission of its offer, the Offeror represents, to the best of its knowledge and belief, that –

(1) There are no relevant facts that could give rise to an OCI, as defined in FAR Part 2; or

(2) The Offeror has disclosed all relevant information regarding any actual or potential conflicts of interest.

Termination for default. If the successful Offeror was aware, or should have been aware, of an OCI before award of this contract and did not fully disclose that conflict to the Contracting Officer, the Government may terminate the contract for default.

Waiver. The agency reserves the right to waive the requirements of FAR 9.5, in accordance with

FAR 9.503.

4.0 VOLUME III – PRICE VOLUME

4.1 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

Contractor shall provide a concise narrative description of the pricing methodology and the manner in which the total price was derived in the price volume. Contractors shall state in the Price Volume any assumptions relied upon in determining prices. Contractors shall submit an Excel pricing spreadsheet that clearly identifies the service and corresponding price. Failure to comply with the instructions in this section constitute grounds for eliminating a contractor from further consideration for award.

A pricing model with volume estimates is provided as part of this RFP (Attachment 6 – Pricing Model) and may be used by Offeror’s for a price volume template but the provided template is not required for submission. Offeror’s may use their own pricing template if desired.

4.1.1. Price Information

All information relating to the proposed price including all required supporting documentation must be included in the section of the proposal designated as the Price volume. Under no circumstances shall this information and documentation be included elsewhere in the proposal. The proposal’s technical contents shall not contain price information.

4.1.2. Probable Subcontractors

Submit a list of the proposed probable subcontractors showing (a) the supplier and (b) description of effort (included in prime’s proposal to the Government).

4.2.0 VOLUME ORGANIZATION

The Price volume shall consist of the following sections:

SECTION 1 – Table of Contents

SECTION 2 – Pricing information spreadsheet

SECTION 3 –Any other relevant Price information. List each exception to the ground rules and assumptions provided in the solicitation regarding Price and each qualification of the Price volume, if any. Provide complete rationale for any exceptions.

5.0 VOLUME IV – TASK ORDER DOCUMENTATION

5.1 MODEL TASK ORDER

The purpose of this volume is to provide information to the Government for preparing the task order document and supporting file. The offeror’s proposal shall include a signed copy of the Model Task Order, and Sections A through J (when applicable). This includes:

5.1.1. Section A – Solicitation/Task Order Form

Completion of block 8 and signature and date for blocks 15a, 15b, and 15c of the Standard Form (SF) 1449. Signature by the offeror on the SF 1449 constitutes an offer, which the Government may accept.

5.1.2. Section B – Supplies or Services and Prices

Complete the pricing information in Section B.1 and B.2 of the model task order.

5.2 Exceptions to Solicitation Requirements

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. Each exception shall be specifically related to each paragraph and/or specific part of the solicitation to which the exception is taken. Provide rationale in support of the exception and fully explain its impact, if any, on the performance, schedule, cost, and specific requirements of the solicitation. If an Offeror determines that there is an applicable exception to the Right of First Refusal requirement, please provide a justification for this exception in accordance with FAR 52.222-17. This information shall be provided in the format and content of Table 5.2.

Table 5.2 – Solicitation Exceptions

Solicitation Document

Page/Paragraph Requirement/Portion Rationale

SOW, Model Task Order, ITO, etc.

Applicable Page and Paragraph Numbers

Identify the requirement or portion to which exception is taken

Describe why the requirement can/will not be met

6.0 OTHER INFORMATION REQUIRED IN MODEL TASK ORDER

6.1.1. Authorized Offeror Personnel

Provide the name, title and telephone number of the company/division point of contact regarding decisions made with respect to your proposal and who can obligate your company contractually.

Also, identify those individuals authorized to negotiate with the Government.

6.1.2. Identifying Codes and Applicable Designations

Provide company/division’s CAGE code; DUNS code; and size of business (large or small). List all locations where work is to be performed and indicate whether such facility is a division, affiliate, or subcontractor, and the percentage of work to be performed at each location.

6.1.3 Security Documentation

Provide completed Attachment 7 and 8 titled respectively, “Key Management Personnel Listing (KMPL)” and “Acquisition Risk Questionnaire (ARQ).”

1.0 SOURCE SELECTION

1.1 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

This is a best value source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3. The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of Technical Approach, Management Approach, Past Performance/Experience, Small Business Participation and Price factors. A contract may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by the “Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors or Respondents” section of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors to represent the best value to the Government. The Government seeks to award to the offeror who gives the Government the greatest confidence that it will best meet, or exceed, the requirements. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the overall business approach and/or technical superiority of the higher price offeror outweighs the price difference. The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation (described below). While the Government source selection evaluation team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective and, therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

1.2 NUMBER OF CONTRACTS TO BE AWARDED

The Government intends to award one IDIQ contract for HRD Medical Services.

2.0 EVALUATION FACTORS

2.1 EVALUATION FACTORS

Award will be made to the offeror proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below.

Factor 1: Technical Capability Factor 2: Management Approach Factor 3: Past Performance/ Experience Factor 4: Small Business Participation Factor 5: Price

Evaluation Factors for Award

2.2 RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS

The relative importance of each factor and subfactor is as follows:

Five areas will be evaluated: Technical Capability, Management Approach, Past Performance/Experience, Small Business Participation, and Cost/Price. The Management Approach factor is the most important factor and weighted highest. The Technical Approach and Past Performance/Experience factors are of equal weight and are less important than Management Approach. Each of those factors, individually and combined, are more important than Cost/Price.

Cost/Price will become more important as these three areas become equal. The Small Business Subcontracting Plan will be rated as a Pass/Fail factor. As the evaluated merit of the competing proposals becomes more equal under the non-price evaluation factors, price becomes more important in the selection and could be the deciding factor for award.

OCI is not an evaluation factor and will not be evaluated as part of mission suitability; rather, the Government will review the prospective awardee’s OCI plan for acceptability. Any proposal with an unacceptable OCI plan will be ineligible for award.

2.3 FACTOR 1: Technical Approach

The Technical Approach narrative should include a Quality Control Plan that demonstrates its ability to ensure quality performance as detailed in the FBI’s Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP)/ Performance Requirements Summary – and ensure quality performance at all fifty – six

(56) Field office locations and Resident Agency locations . The proposal should address how the Offeror will successfully produce any deliverables stated in the QASP. The Offeror’s Technical Approach will also be evaluated as to how the Offeror will effectively utilize electronic reporting and communication with the Government for this requirement. The Offeror’s narrative should clearly show that they have a good understanding of this requirement and the work to be performed in the Statement of Work.

2.4 FACTOR 2: Management Approach

The Management Approach will be evaluated as to the Offeror’s ability to staff and manage all fifty – six (56) Field Offices and potential for all Resident Agency locations with highly competent, licensed, and credentialed Contracted Providers and then maintain full coverage for all fifty – six (56) locations and all corresponding Resident Agency locations with minimal disruption in service. The Management Approach will be evaluated in terms of an Offeror’s ability to direct and control all aspects of performance, cost, and quality of work provided by Contracted Providers.

The evaluation will include an assessment of the resume of the Offeror’s proposed lead project manager for the effort. The lead project manager will be evaluated based upon individual appropriate work experience; professional education; certifications; and demonstrated successful expertise performing their role on a project of similar scope and complexity.

2.5 FACTOR 3: Past Performance/Experience

The Offeror shall provide a PPQ response for each Experience Narrative. The PPQ responses are not required to be submitted with this volume, however, the Offeror is responsible for the Government PPQ response for each Experience Narrative. Early submission is encouraged.

Government PPQ responses shall be submitted directly by the Government customer to the FBI Contracting Officer and Contract Specialist prior to the RFP closing date. The PPQ will address how well the Offeror performed on the contracts identified in the Experience Narrative citations and include the Government customer’s assessment of the accuracy of the Offeror’s Experience Narrative.

The Relevant Experience Narratives / Past Performance assessments will be evaluated as to the Offeror’s experience performing similar requirements for other Government Agencies (Federal, State or Local) along with how well it performed those services. Past Performance is relevant when an Offeror has been confronted with the kinds of challenges and risks contemplated by the solicitation. Past Performance is recent when an Offeror has performed this type of work within the past seven (7) years. The more similar an Offeror’s past performance is to the solicitation requirements, in terms of size, scope, and complexity, the more relevant it will be considered. If the Offeror does not have relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or is unknown, the Offeror will receive a rating of “Neutral”.

2.6 FACTOR 4: Small Business Participation

The Government will evaluate the Small Business Subcontracting Plan on its quality, level of appropriate detail, feasibility, cost effectiveness, compliance with FAR Part 19.704, and the Contractor’s good faith effort to help the FBI achieve its Small Business Subcontracting goals listed below:

Small Business (SB) 38% Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) 5% Woman-Owned Small Business (WOSB) 5% HUBZone Business (HUBZone) 3% Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Business (SDVOSB) 3%

2.7 Evaluation Ratings and Definitions for Factors 1 and 2

2.7.1. Definitions

• “Significant Strength” means an outstanding or exceptional aspect of the approach that greatly exceeds the acceptable level of quality and provides a beneficial capability.

• “Strength” means a significant aspect of the approach that exceeds the acceptable level of quality and provides a beneficial capability.

• “Weakness” is a flaw in the approach that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance.

• “Significant Weakness” is a flaw in the approach that greatly increases the risk of unsuccessful performance.

• “Deficiency” is a material failure of a proposal to meet the minimum acceptable level of performance or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

The below rating scales will be used for the evaluation of Factors 1 and 2 The color code rating depicts how well the proposal meets the evaluation standards. Color code ratings will be assigned based upon a consensus of the Evaluation Team. The Color ratings will be assigned as follows:

Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Purple Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough Approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is unawardable.

2.8. Evaluation Ratings and Definitions for Factor 3

2.8.1 Definitions

There are three (3) aspects to the Experience and Past Performance evaluation; recency, relevancy, and quality of past performance services. These are combined to establish a performance confidence assessment rating for each Offeror.

Recency: The first aspect is to validate the recency of the Offeror’s experience and Past Performance. Recency is defined as work performed within the last seven (7) years.

Relevancy: The second aspect is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the Offeror is to the effort being acquired through source selection. Relevancy in this acquisition includes those aspects of an Offeror’s history of contract experience that would provide the most context and give the greatest ability to measure whether the Offeror will successfully satisfy the current requirement.

Relevancy Ratings are as follows:

Experience Relevancy Ratings Rating Definition Very Relevant Experience involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Experience involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Experience involved some of the scope and solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Experience involved little or none scope and solicitation requires.

Quality. The third sub-factor of the Past Performance evaluation is to establish the overall quality of the Offeror’s Past Performance. It is conducted in support of a current source selection and does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the Offeror’s Past Performance on past contracts; rather, the Past Performance evaluation process gathers information from Government customers on how well the Offeror performed those past contracts.

The following standards will be used in arriving at the rating:

Outstanding: The Contractor’s performance exceeded customer expectations and was technically acceptable, providing significant features or benefits.

Satisfactory: The Contractor met customer expectations or contract requirements and demonstrated an acceptable understanding of the requirements.

Unsatisfactory: The Contractor’s performance was either marginal or did not meet customer expectations or contract requirements.

Other: If the element is not applicable, indicate with “N/A.” If no data has been obtained or additional comments are provided, please note in this column.

As a final step, the rating assigned under the Offeror’s Performance Confidence Assessment will be based on the Offerors overall record of Recency, Relevancy, and Quality.

Performance Confidence Assessment.

The Performance Confidence Assessment composite rating for the each of the Offeror’s Experience Narratives will be one (1) of the following five (5) Performance Confidence ratings:

High Confidence Based on the Offeror’s performance record, essentially no doubt exists that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort

Significant Confidence Based on the Offeror’s performance record, little doubt exists that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the Offeror’s performance record, some doubt exists that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Normal contractor emphasis should preclude any problems

Unknown (Neutral) Confidence No recent/relevant performance record is available, or the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned

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

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

Factor 3 will then be assigned a color rating based upon overall Confidence and Relevancy ratings.

2.9 Evaluation Ratings and Definitions for Factor 4

Rating Description

Acceptable Meets the requirements specified in FAR 19.704, and provides a clear, detailed, logical and realistic approach for utilizing small business concerns based on the DOJ subcontracting goals and percentages of total contract value, as provided for in the solicitation instructions, for the contract period of performance, to include option years, or the plan must provide rationale if unable to do so.

Unacceptable Does not meet the requirements specified in FAR 19.704, and does not provide a clear, detailed, logical and realistic approach for utilizing small business concerns based on the DOJ subcontracting goals and percentages of total contract value, as provided for in the solicitation instructions, for the contract period of performance, to include option years, nor does the plan provide rationale if unable to meet the requirements.

Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Purple Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough Approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is unawardable.

2.10 FACTOR 5: Price

The proposed prices will be evaluated, but not scored. The price factor will be evaluated as to its submitted Base Year and Option Year FFP service prices to determine if they are (1) fair and reasonable and (2) realistic for the work to be performed and are consistent with the other various elements of the Offeror’s proposal. The FFP service prices will be evaluated in their aggregate for the Base Year and Option Years as reflected in the Offeror’s completed Excel Spreadsheet using the Government – provided template or Offeror’s desired template. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options. The price information submitted in each Offeror‘s price proposal, as required by the Instructions to Offerors, will be evaluated to determine if proposed prices are fair and reasonable in accordance with FAR 15.404 (which may include, but not limited to, one or more of the following proposal analysis techniques listed below) based on each Offeror‘s proposed approach. A task order will not be awarded to an Offeror whose price is not determined to be fair and reasonable.

The Government may use any of the following price analysis techniques in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b) to determine price reasonableness: comparison of proposed prices received, comparison of previously proposed prices and previous Government and commercial contract prices, use of parametric estimating/rough yardsticks, comparison with competitive published price lists or market prices, comparison with independent Government cost estimates, comparison with market research, and analysis of pricing information provided by the Offeror. The Government may also use technical analysis in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(e), to determine price reasonableness.

In addition, proposed unit prices may be evaluated for unbalanced pricing in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g). Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items or sub-line item(s) appear to be significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. An Offeror’s proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

If the proposal analysis techniques listed above are insufficient to make a determination of price reasonableness or, if the Contracting Officer determines that adequate price competition no longer exists, the Contracting Officer may request submission of certified cost or pricing data or data other than certified cost or pricing data, as appropriate, and/or may use other proposal analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404, to the extent necessary, in order to make a determination of price reasonableness.

The price proposal(s) will be evaluated, using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404-1, in order to determine if the proposed price(s) are fair and reasonable.

2.11. SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as factors or subfactors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide supporting rationale.

Evaluation Factors for Award