Attachment 3 - Evaluation Criteria.pdf

OFPM Facilities Management Systems Implementation and Support Solicitation # 1333ND21QNB130237 Evaluation Criteria

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1.1 Contract Award

The Government will evaluate quotations in accordance with the evaluation factors/structure details below. Contract award will be made to the responsible Offeror whose offer represents the best value to the Government, with technical evaluation factors and price/cost considered. The Government reserves the right not to award a purchase order depending on the quality of the quotations submitted and the availability of funds. Based upon the results of the integrated assessment of the technical and cost/price quotations, the Government may make an award to other than the lowest-priced offeror or the offeror with the highest technical score if the contracting officer determines that doing so would result in the best value to the Government.

The Government's objective is to obtain the highest technical quality considered necessary to achieve the project objectives, with a fair and reasonable price.

Award without Discussion: Offerors are advised that the Government intends to award without discussions but reserves the right to request revised quotations if necessary. Accordingly, quotations shall be submitted initially on the most favorable terms from a price/cost and technical standpoint.

Quotations will be evaluated in two stages, as outlined below.

Quotations received by the stated due date and time will be evaluated under Stage One as described below. Following the completion of the Stage One evaluations, the Government will advise each Stage One offeror of whether or not they are one of the most highly rated offerors and on the likelihood of the offeror receiving an award. This advisory notice is a recommendation only and discontinuing the pursuit of the requirement into Stage Two following the notification is voluntary. However, the intent of this advisory notice is to minimize quotation development costs for Quoters with little to no chance of receiving an award, to assist with the appropriate decision-making regarding continuation of the quotation.

1.2 Stage One Evaluation Factors

Stage One Technical Submissions will be reviewed and evaluated in accordance with the evaluation criteria identified below.

1. OEM partner status

The Government will review an offeror’s response and confirm that the offeror is an authorized OEM partner/reseller of the proposed solution. The Offeror must be authorized to provide licenses for the proposed solution along with implementation/support services for the proposed solution. This will be evaluated on a Pass/Fail basis. Only those offerors that demonstrate that they are an authorized partner/reseller of the OEM of the proposed solution will be assigned a “Pass” rating on this section of Stage One.

2. Attachment 4: Minimum Requirements

The Government will review/evaluate Attachment 4 completed as submitted by offerors to determine if the proposed solution meets the Government’s minimum requirement as shown below. The offeror’s completed Attachment 4: “Minimum Requirements” will be evaluated on a Pass/Fail basis. Only those offerors that self-certify “Yes” to each of the criteria on the “Minimum Requirements” worksheet of Attachment 4 will be assigned a “Pass” rating on this section of Stage One:

a. A Commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) Software-as-a Service (SaaS) system that has 1) been through the Government's FedRAMP authorization at the moderate level; 2) or has an Assessment and Authorization (A&A) at the moderate level as it relates to the security requirements set forth in FISMA;

or 3) meets the equivalent to security and privacy controls compliant with security requirements defined by applicable federal laws, regulations, policies, and standards (e.g., the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA), OMB Circular A-130, and FIPS Publication 200), and requirements in accordance with the NIST FMS SOW;

b. An EAM application solution that provides an embedded ERP capability with low/no code configuration;

c. The application shall provide real-time data flow between the EAM and ERP components;

d. The application shall provide mobile capabilities that are designed to function natively on iOS and

Android devices in occasionally connected environments, allow workers in the field to perform all aspects of Work Management including receive, review, and complete work orders including all associated (view, consume, and order materials, review manuals, etc.) activities;

e. The application shall provide a robust Construction Management component that integrates seamlessly into EAM.

If the offeror fails to receive a “Pass” rating on either Sections 1 or 2 of Stage One, then the quotation will be considered to be unacceptable and will not be evaluated any further in Stage One.

3. Attachment 4: System Functional Specifications

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed COTS product’s ability to provide the functionality contained in the System Functional Specifications attachment (the “Functional Specifications” worksheet of Attachment 4). Functionalities that are evaluated and considered to be “Supported out-of-the-box” are considered to be the most favorable and “Not Supported” is considered to be the least favorable.

1. Supported out-of-the-box: The feature is fully supported without any additional changes.

2. Supported via 3rd Party: This feature is supported but it requires the purchase of a 3rd party product in order to fulfill the requirement.

3. Configuration Required: The feature is supported but requires configuration to be used.

4. Modification Required: The product must be customized or altered in order to provide the feature. Customization means that the product requires changes to code within any part of the application architecture (application, database, etc.).

5. Future feature: This feature is planned to be supported in a future release and may not be immediately available.

6. Not Supported: The product does not provide the feature or functionality.

The Government will review the completed “Functional Specifications” worksheet submitted by the offeror to evaluate the Offeror’s ability to provide a solution with the required functionality out-of-the-box or with minimal configuration and/or customization, using the scale detailed above. The offeror(s) who propose a solution with the highest number of functionalities that are supported out-of-the-box or with minimal configuration and/or customization required, and with the least number of functionalities that are “Not Supported” will be evaluated more favorably. Offerors shall complete the “Functional Specifications” worksheet in its entirely. Failure to do so will be considered to be an incomplete quotation and will not be evaluated by the Government.

For those offerors that participate in Stage Two of the evaluation, the results of the Government’s evaluation of the Offeror’s completed “Functional Specifications” worksheet will also be incorporated into the evaluation of quotations as a subfactor under Factor 1 of Stage Two.

Following the completion of the Stage One evaluations, the Government will advise each Stage One offeror of whether or not they are one of the most highly rated offerors and on the likelihood of the offeror receiving an award. This advisory notice is a recommendation only and discontinuing the pursuit of the requirement into Stage Two following the notification is voluntary. However, the intent of this advisory notice is to minimize quotation development costs for Quoters with little to no chance of receiving an award, to assist with the appropriate decision-making regarding continuation of the quotation.

1.3 Stage Two Evaluation Factors

Quotations submitted by Offerors in Stage Two will be reviewed and evaluated in accordance with the evaluation criteria identified below. In determining the offeror that represents the best value to the Government, the non-price evaluation factors detailed below, when combined, are considered more important than price. Non-price Factors 1 and 2 are equally important; and non-price Factors 3 and 4 are equally important; Factors 1 and 2 are more important than Factors 3 and 4. Subfactors under Factor 1 are equally important.

The following evaluation factors will be used:

1. Factor 1 - Technical Capability/Approach

a. Technical Capability/Approach

b. Stage One System Functional Specifications rating

2. Factor 2 - Oral Presentation

3. Factor 3 - Management Approach

4. Factor 4 - Past Performance

5. Factor 5 - Price

The Offeror’s technical quotation shall demonstrate its ability to perform the requirements as outlined in the Stage Two Instructions and will be evaluated based upon the following criteria:

1. Factor 1 - Technical Capability/Approach

Subfactor 1: Technical Capability/Approach:

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s overall technical understanding of the SOW; the soundness and feasibility of the proposed technical approach to fulfill the requirements of the SOW; and the extent to which the Offeror has demonstrated the technical expertise and ability to perform the requirements of the SOW.

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s understanding and its ability to meet the technical requirements expressed in the solicitation, including the ability to enable a fully mobile workforce to perform activities (e.g. work management, materials management, etc.) in the field.

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed application’s architecture including products, platforms, and hosting environment. The Government will consider how the proposed solution’s architecture leverages modern design principles and APIs to enable seamless integration with other systems and minimizes customization (development of custom code).

Subfactor 2: Stage One System Functional Specifications Rating:

The Government will consider its assessment/evaluation of the Offeror’s completed “Functional Specifications” worksheet of Attachment 4 that was submitted and evaluated in Stage One.

2. Factor 2 - Oral Presentation

Through the presentation of the scenarios listed in Attachment 7, the Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror’s proposed solution meets/exceeds the functionalities listed in the attachment, the overall user friendliness of the solution, and the extent to which the solution provides a well-designed web-based and mobile interface solution that will meet the overall objectives of OFPM. The Government will also consider the offeror’s key personnel’s knowledge of the proposed solution through the demonstration.

The Government will consider any technical assumptions and risk factors discussed (if any) by the Offerors and the proposed approach(es) to mitigate them.

3. Factor 3 - Management Approach

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s organizational qualifications, capacity, and management plan and the ability of the offeror to oversee the multiple, complex and overlapping components of this project.

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed plan/approach to fully transition users to the new system within 18 months.

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed labor mix, including the proposed level of effort and estimated allocation of hours across the SOW tasks, and the extent to which it is appropriate and will foster successful completion of the SOW tasks.

The following items will also be considered in the Factor 3 evaluation, and are not considered separate subfactors:

Key Personnel

The qualifications of the proposed key personnel will be evaluated on the extent to which they meet or exceed the minimum qualifications detailed in the SOW, the extent to which they represent substantial relevant qualifications in successfully managing commercial or government projects of similar scope, complexity, and rigor – including projects with multiple components – and involving the same or highly related topics, and the extent to which they are able to accomplish all of the tasks and subtasks in the specified timeframe, as described in the SOW.

Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP)

The Government will evaluate the rationale for the proposed performance standards and performance measurement methodology and assess whether the total solution will ensure that the performance standards are met.

4. Factor 4 - Past Performance

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s past performance information, which is expected to demonstrate the likelihood that the prospective contract will be performed successfully by the offeror.

The term “offeror,” as used here, refers to the prime contractor and any of its proposed subcontractors.

The Contracting Officer reserves the right to limit its review of past performance information to what he/she has determined to be relevant. The offeror is advised that the Contracting Officer, using sound business judgment, may consider any source of past performance information, and may deem Federal contract past performance to be more relevant than State Agencies, Local Government or Commercial Customer performance assessments.

In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance, or for which information on past performance is not available, the offeror’s Past Performance may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably.

5. Price Evaluation

Stage Two quotations will be evaluated based on the proposed firm fixed pricing to ensure it aligns with the offeror’s proposed technical approach and is fair and reasonable.

The Government will also evaluate price completeness to determine whether the Offeror has properly understood the business quotation instructions. The submission of an incomplete price quotation may deem the offeror’s quotation unacceptable.