Attachment 3 - Draft Technical Evaluation Factors.pdf

FAR 52.212-2 - Addendum

Technical Quotation Requirements for DLA Document Services Off-Site Document Conversion and Scanning Services:

This document outlines the required elements for technical quotations submitted in response to the solicitation for DLA Document Service Off-Site Document Conversion and Scanning Services.

Quotations must demonstrate the vendor's understanding of the scope and complexity of the project, and their ability to meet the stringent requirements for document handling, digitization, security, and quality control, as detailed in the provided specifications.

Evaluation Summary:

The evaluation method that will be utilized is Best Value – Subjective Tradeoff. Award will be made on the basis of quotes meeting or exceeding the technical and past performance standards stated in this Request for Quote (RFQ) that represents the best value to the Government. Technical and past performance when combined are significantly more important than price. The Government reserves the right to make award to other than the lowest priced Offeror, or other than the highest-rated Offeror for non-price factors.

The Government will evaluate each proposal strictly in accordance with its content and will not assume that performance will include areas not specified in the Offeror's proposal.

The Government anticipates awarding Multiple Firm Fixed Price Blanket Purchase Agreements (BPA) to up-to three (3) vendors that represent the best value to the Government.

Evaluation Factors:

Factor 1: Technical

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Price

The offerors’ quotes will be evaluated for the ordering period in its entirety. When “this Addendum” is referenced in the factors below, it refers to the ordering period in its entirety unless stated otherwise.

1. Factor 1 – Technical:

The ratings given for the Technical Evaluation Factors and Subfactors will reflect the degree to which the proposed approach meets or does not meet the requirements as identified under the Technical Evaluation Factors and Subfactors in this Addendum through an assessment of the strengths, significant strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies of a quotation as defined below. Accordingly, these Technical Evaluation Factors and Subfactors, in this Addendum will be evaluated utilizing the following adjectival ratings:

Color Rating Adjectival

Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Evaluation factor demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength.

Purple Good Evaluation factor indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength or significant strength.

Green Acceptable Evaluation factor meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Yellow Marginal Evaluation factor has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Red Unacceptable Evaluation factor does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is un-awardable.

The adjectival and color rating from the table above has an assessment of technical risk, which is manifested by the identification of weakness(es), considers the potential for disruption of schedule, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and/or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

The following definitions apply to strength, significant strength, weakness and significant weakness:

Adjectival Rating Definition Strength An aspect of an Offeror's quotation that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Significant Strength

An aspect of an Offeror’s quotation that has appreciable merit or appreciably exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be appreciably advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

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

Significant Weakness

A flaw in the quotation that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

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.

The overall quotation will be evaluated using the following Combined Technical/Risk Rating table considering each evaluation factor technical, past performance and price:

Color Rating Adjectival

Rating Description Blue Outstanding Quotation demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple Good Quotation indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength or significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Green Acceptable Quotation meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Quotation has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable Quotation does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable, and/or risk of performance is unacceptably high.

The evaluation will not assign separate risk ratings; however, the definitions for risk are below for informational purposes:

Risk Rating Definition

Low Quotation may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance.

Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Quotation contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High Quotation contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Unacceptable Quotation contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

Individual Technical Factors and Subfactors:

1.0 Executive Summary Evaluation Factors:

• Briefly describe your company's history, experience, and qualifications in providing off-site document conversion and scanning services, particularly for government agencies.

• Highlight your experience handling sensitive information, including SECRET, SBU, PII, and CUI documents, specifically in an off-site environment.

• Summarize your proposed approach to meeting DLA's requirements, including secure document transportation, chain-of-custody procedures, facility security, and adherence to all security protocols.

2.0 Technical Approach Evaluation Factors:

Provide a detailed description of your proposed methodology for each phase of the document conversion and scanning process, addressing the following:

2.1 Secure Document Transportation and Chain-of-Custody:

• Chain-of-Custody Documentation:

o Describe your system for maintaining a detailed chain-of-custody record for all government-furnished materials, including:

Unique identification numbers for each box/container

Timestamped records of transfers and receipts

Signatures of authorized personnel at each transfer point

Secure storage of chain-of-custody documentation

• Insurance and Liability:

o Specify your insurance coverage for loss, damage, or theft of government-furnished materials during transportation and storage.

o Explain your liability procedures in the event of any incidents.

2.2 Off-Site Facility Security Evaluation Factors:

• Physical Security:

o Describe the physical security measures in place at your off-site facility, including:

Access control systems (e.g., key cards, biometric scanners)

Surveillance systems (e.g., CCTV cameras, motion detectors)

Alarm systems and response protocols

Secure storage areas for classified and sensitive materials

Environmental controls (temperature, humidity) to ensure document preservation o Provide evidence of compliance with relevant security standards (e.g., NIST

SP 800-53, FISMA).

• Personnel Security Evaluation Factors:

o Explain your procedures for ensuring that all personnel working at your off-site facility have appropriate security clearances and background checks:

Favorably adjudicated Tier III background investigations (formally

ANACI)

Common Access Cards (CACs) or Installation Access Badges as required o Detail your access control measures for limiting employee access to specific areas and data based on their clearance levels.

• Data Security Evaluation Factors:

o Describe your data security protocols for protecting electronic information at your off-site facility, including:

Network security (firewalls, intrusion detection systems)

Data encryption for storage and transmission

Secure data backup and disaster recovery procedures

Secure data erasure and disposal methods o Demonstrate compliance with relevant data security regulations (e.g., NIST

SP 800-171).

2.3 Technical Approach Document Conversion and Scanning Evaluation Factors:

• Document Preparation and Clean-up: Describe your process for preparing documents for scanning, including handling of various document types, sizes, and conditions. Detail your approach to handling fragile materials and ensuring document integrity.

• Scanning and Digitization: Specify the scanning equipment and software you will utilize, highlighting their capabilities in meeting NARA or FADGI standards for image quality, resolution, and color accuracy. Explain your process for de-skewing, cropping, blank page removal, and other image optimization techniques.

• Optical Character Recognition (OCR): Describe the OCR technology you employ, emphasizing accuracy rates and capabilities in handling various fonts, languages, and document layouts. Explain your quality assurance measures for OCR accuracy.

• Indexing and Metadata Creation: Explain your approach to indexing and metadata creation, including adherence to specified naming conventions and metadata fields.

Describe your experience with creating searchable databases and XML load files for content management systems.

• File Conversion and Output Media: Detail your capabilities in converting digitized content to various file formats, including PDF, TIFF, and others as specified. Specify the types of output media you can provide, including CDs, DVDs, external hard drives, and secure electronic uploads.

• Secure Handling and Data Protection: Provide a comprehensive overview of your security protocols and procedures for handling sensitive information, including SECRET, SBU, PII, and CUI documents. Demonstrate compliance with all relevant regulations and industry best practices for data security.

• Quality Control and Reporting: Describe your quality control procedures at each stage of the project, including scanning, OCR, indexing, and file conversion. Outline your reporting mechanisms for providing regular progress updates, production metrics, and issue tracking.

3.0 Personnel and Qualifications Evaluation Factors:

Provide a detailed description of your proposed project team, including:

• Organizational Chart: Include an organizational chart depicting the project team structure and reporting lines.

• Key Personnel Resumes: Submit resumes for all key personnel, highlighting relevant experience, certifications, and security clearances. Clearly demonstrate their qualifications to perform the required tasks.

• Staffing Plan: Provide a staffing plan outlining the roles, clearance level, responsibilities, and allocated hours for each team member.

4.0 Facilities and Equipment

Describe your facilities and equipment, ensuring they meet the project's requirements:

• Scanning Facilities: Describe your scanning facilities, including security measures, environmental controls (temperature, humidity), and capacity for handling large volumes of documents.

• Scanning Equipment: Provide detailed specifications for all scanning equipment, including models, capabilities (resolution, speed, color accuracy), and compatibility with NARA and FADGI standards.

• Software and Technology: List all software and technologies used for document scanning, OCR/ICR, indexing, file conversion, quality control, and data security.

5.0 Project Management Plan Evaluation Factors:

Provide a comprehensive project management plan outlining your approach to:

• Project Schedule: Develop a detailed project schedule with milestones, deliverables, and timelines for each phase of the project.

• Communication Plan: Describe your communication protocols for regular updates, issue reporting, and stakeholder engagement.

• Risk Management Plan: Identify potential risks and outline your mitigation strategies.

• Quality Assurance Plan: Detail your quality assurance procedures, including inspection points, acceptance criteria, and corrective action processes.

2. Factor 2 – Past Performance:

The Government evaluates past performance information as a predictor of future contract performance. The Government will assess the degree of confidence it has in the expectation that the Offeror will successfully complete the solicitation requirements based on the Offerors past performance. It is the responsibility of the Offeror to provide complete past performance information and thorough explanations.

The Government may use any of the following information as it evaluates an Offerors past performance:

• Past performance information provided by the Offeror in its quotation; AND

• Past performance information obtained from any other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS), or other databases, and interviews with Program Managers and Contracting Officers.

1.0 Recency Evaluation Factors:

Provide three (3) but no more than five (5) references for projects of a similar scope and complexity completed within the past five (5) years. Include contact information for each reference, allowing DLA to verify past performance.

2.0 Relevancy Evaluation Factors:

The Government will evaluate each recent reference to determine the level of relevancy.

The relevancy of the past performance information will be evaluated using the following adjectival ratings:

Adjectival Rating Definition Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

The Government will review past performance information collected on all recent and relevant contracts to determine the quality of the Offerors performance. The Government may consider the recency, relevancy, source, context of the past performance information it evaluates, general trends in performance, and demonstrated corrective actions. With respect to relevancy, past performance of greater relevancy will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance.

A rating of Neutral Confidence will be assigned to an Offeror that has no prior performance history.

The Government will select the most appropriate performance confidence assessment rating from the chart below.

Adjectival Rating Definition Substantial Confidence

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

Satisfactory Confidence

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

Neutral Confidence No recent/relevant performance record is available or the Offerors performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence Based on the Offerors recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the Offerors recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

3. Factor 3 – Price:

Price will be evaluated but not rated. The price quotations will be evaluated for total price quoted from each offeror. Total price is inclusive of base pricing from the base pricing tab and all option year pricing from the option year pricing tabs (See Attachment (X) – Price Schedule).

The Pricing Team plans to determine pricing fair and reasonable based upon competition on a best-value basis when considering technical and past performance. In addition to competition, in order to ensure a fair and reasonable price, the Pricing Team may use other available price analysis techniques to include, but not limited to:

• Comparison of quoted prices to historical prices paid.

• Comparison of quoted prices with Independent Government Cost Estimates.

• Comparison of quoted prices with prices obtained from market research for the same or similar items.

As part of the evaluation, quotations shall be reviewed to identify any unbalanced pricing. A quotation may be rejected if the KO determines the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

The Contracting Officer (KO) reserves the right to make no award as a result of the solicitation if, upon evaluation, the quoted price(s) cannot be determined fair and reasonable.