B02 Attachment C Source Selection Plan.pdf

USDA RFP No. 12314422R0011

United States Department of Agriculture

OCIO/CEC

FY23 Enterprise Business Solutions

Source Selection Plan

Table of Contents

1.0 INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

1.1 Proposal Submission

A notional schedule is below:

1.2 Proposal Due Date and Submission

1.3 Phase 1 – Pricing Worksheet & Submission of Past Performance

1.4 Phase 2 – Written Submission and Proof of Concept of Alternative Solution Transition Approach (if necessary)

1.4.1 Written Technical Response

1.4.2 Proof of Concept

1.4.2.1 The proposal shall include a Proof of Concept (PoC). This will be a two-step process

2.0 Amendment of RFP prior to RFP Closing Time

2.0 BASIS OF AWARD AND EVALUATION FACTORS

2.1 Basis of Award

2.2 Evaluation Factors

2.3 Evaluation Approach

2.3.1 Phase 1 Evaluation of Factor 1 –Responsiveness to Brand Name or Equivalent and Price

2.3.2 Phase 1 Evaluation of Factor 2- Past Performance…………………………………….…8

2.3.3 Phase 2 Evaluation of Factor 1–Written Technical Solution

2.3.4 Phase 2 Evaluation of Factor 2- Proof of Concept………………………………….……………….8

2.3.5 Phase 2 Evaluation of Factor 3- Total Cost of Ownership……………………………….…………8

3.0 Source Selection Evaluation Team………………………………………………………...……………9

3.1 Source Selection Authority………………………………………………………………..…………….9

3.2 Source Selection Evaluation Board…………………………………………………..…………………9

4.0 Summary………………………………………………………………………………………………….9

United States Department of Agriculture Office of the Chief Information Officer/Client Experience Center

FY23 Enterprise Business Solutions

Source Selection Plan

1.0 INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

1.1 Proposal Submission

USDA is issuing this Request for Proposals (RFP) as 100% Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business set aside via Sam.gov Contracting Opportunities. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) intends to issue a single award contract. The USDA will utilize confidence ratings to arrive at the best offer. See Section 2.0 of this document for the Basis of Award and Evaluation Factors.

A notional schedule is below:

EVENT DATE

Submission of equal Pricing or equivalents and Past Performance

Due: 6/21/2022 As stated on sam.gov

Submission of Written Technical Approach, and Proof of Concept

Estimated: (Stated in notification if selected for phase 2)

Anticipated Award Announced Estimated: 8/15/2022

Table 1

1.2 Proposal Due Date and Submission

Offerors shall submit their proposal via sam.gov as stated on sam.gov. The Government is not liable for any expenses incurred by the Offerors in developing and submitting proposals for this RFP. Offerors shall ensure the Representations Regarding Certain Telecommunications and Video Surveillance Services found at Solicitation Provision FAR 52.204-24 are updated in their SAM record, included with their submitted proposal. This rule prohibits contracting officers from issuing awards to contractors who certify they use any equipment, system, or service that uses covered telecommunications equipment or services as a substantial or essential component of any system, or as critical technology as part of any system, unless an exception at FAR 4.2102(b) applies or a waiver is granted. A waiver is not expected to occur under this procurement.

1.3 Phase 1 – Pricing Worksheet & Submission of Past Performance

The contractor shall submit its pricing in writing via the attached B02 Attachment A Vendor Price Worksheet. The offeror shall provide its pricing based on the Price Worksheet and Statement of Work (SOW). The period of performance is estimated to be for a base period of twelve (12) months and nine (9) twelve (12) month option periods. The offeror’s total price must include the total cost of the replacement solution that satisfies all requirements and must include transition costs, and training costs agreements during the transition period.

The offeror should price all CLINs during the base period and option periods for the specified requirements. In the event offerors are unable to price all option periods in the pricing worksheet, the USDA reserves the right to limit the number of option periods being evaluated in Phase 1 and reduce the anticipated contract term if it is determined to be in the best interest of the USDA. The salient physical, functional, or performance characteristics that "equal" products must meet are specified in the solicitation, as stated in the SOW (Attachment B to the solicitation). Offerors should also include a suggested monthly billing amount (invoice/payment schedule) as a part of their submission.

Offerors are also required to submit verification of past performance utilizing the B02 Attachment E Past Performance Questionnaire as part of the Phase 1 submission.

For offerors proposing other than Microsoft, the USDA will consider this to be an alternative solution. Offerors are highly encouraged to read the B02 USDA Enterprise Business Solutions (EBS) Transition Assessment Report found at B02 Attachment D.

1. Phase 1 – Go/No-Go

a) Capable vendors will provide a completed requirements pricing worksheet to the maximum extent possible, (in the event offeror is unable to price all option periods). If it is identified that offerors cannot price the full base plus 9 option period term, the USDA reserves the right to limit the number of option periods being evaluated in Phase 1 and shorten the contract term. Offerors must include a price worksheet completed in accordance with the instructions for their solution and a minimum of three (3) past performance questionnaires.

b) Capable vendors must provide a minimum of three (3) past performance references for efforts that are similar in size, scope, and complexity, and that are either ongoing or were completed within the last three years or will be considered non-responsive and will be removed from further consideration. The Government reserves the right to review any information contained with the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) or any other Government source. The Government also may contact provided reference points of contact. Any of these sources may contain information that informs the Government’s confidence assessment for this factor.

Past performance will be evaluated, and a confidence rating assigned. The lowest priced offering of each proposed solution (Microsoft and/or alternative solution) with a high confidence rating based on past performance from Phase 1 will receive a “go” to Phase 2. Meaning, USDA will advance to Phase 2 the lowest priced/high confidence Microsoft proposal, the lowest priced/high confidence alternative solution proposal, the lowest priced/high confidence hybrid proposal, etc.

The USDA reserves the right to only consider the lowest priced hybrid solution with high confidence rating as “go” for Phase 2. At its discretion, USDA may group hybrids and select more than one (1) hybrid solution to go on to Phase 2. In that situation, USDA would select the lowest price/high confidence hybrid solution in each hybrid group as a “go”.

Offerors will receive a “no-go” and will not participate in Phase 2 if they: (1) do not receive a high confidence rating for past performance; (2) receive a high confidence rating for past performance but do not propose with the lowest price for their proposed solution; (3) do not comply with the price worksheet requirements; or (4) are found non-responsive to the brand name or equivalent requirement. Those offerors found to be “no-go” will be notified and provided a post award debriefing pursuant to FAR 15.5.

1.4 Phase 2 – Written Submission and Proof of Concept of Alternative Solution Transition

Approach (if necessary)

Alternative Solution offers that participate in Phase 2 will be assigned a confidence rating based on the evaluation of their technical proposal and proof of concept.

For this Phase, the lowest priced Microsoft offeror will not submit a technical proposal or present a Proof of Concept. The lowest priced Microsoft offeror will not be required to participate in the Proof of Concept as the Microsoft solution is currently in place and will receive an automatic high confidence rating for Phase 2 based on USDA’s historical use of the solution and will be considered for award. Price will also be further evaluated in Phase 2 for alternative proposals to determine the total cost of ownership.

In the event there are no solutions other than Microsoft proposed, the USDA reserves the right to bypass Phase 2 proceeding directly from Phase 1 to award. In that case, USDA will select among Microsoft offerors on the basis of the Phase 1 requirements to provide a completed price worksheet and past performance questionnaires. The award determination will be based off of the lowest priced offer.

The alternative solutions offeror bears the burden of the transition from the current solution to the proposed solution. In an alternate solution, the USDA shall not lose functionality or shall not impact on official government records. All files and documentation must be accessible within the proposed solution without impacting document integrity with no data loss (archived, present, or future reporting). The USDA has provided the EBS Transition Assessment Report, Attachment D that identifies but is not limited to areas of transition and migration risk. The USDA may use this report when assessing confidence in alternate solutions.

In an alternate solution, the proposal shall include a strategy or plan for the vendor to commence a Proof of Concept (PoC) covering a time period of up to four (4) weeks. The PoC shall test the feasibility of business concepts and proposals to fulfill the USDA requirements, resolve business problems and accelerate business innovation and modernization goals. The PoC shall describe the idea and proposed functionality of the product, including its general design or specific features, and how achievable they are within the entirety of the USDA environment.

1.4.1 Written Technical Response

The government will further assess its level of confidence that the contractor will successfully perform the work through evaluation of the offeror’s response to the Statement of Work (SOW) and through its written transition approach. The written response is a part of assessing the vendor’s capabilities. Each area of the SOW must be addressed adequately.

Page Limitations. The written response shall be no more than 15 pages. In addition to the written response, offerors must provide a separate list of assumptions that do not count towards the page limit.

The assessment shall include responses directly responding to the Attachment B Statement of Work as listed under the following section headers:

1. Outcomes

2. Security Requirements

3. Records Management Electronic Records Management System (ERMS) Objectives and Requirements

4. Requirements

5. Premier Services Support

6. Transition Requirements

a. Transition and Migration Objectives

b. Records Management

c. Training and Education

d. Application Services

e. Mobile Devices

f. Desktop Operation Systems

1.4.2 Proof of Concept

1.4.2.1 The proposal shall include a Proof of Concept (PoC). This will be a two-step process.

The PoC shall include a strategy or plan which describes the idea and proposed functionality of the product, including its general design or specific features, and how achievable they are within the entirety of the USDA environment and fulfillment of requirements.

The proposed solution shall include, at a minimum, operating system, office suite capabilities, applications, mobile interoperability and functions, and records management. In addition, the interfaces to remote offices will be tested. The proposed solution shall include system administration functions.

The offeror shall perform a PoC which covers a time period of up to four (4) weeks to test the feasibility of the alternative offered solutions to fulfill the USDA requirements, resolve business problems, provide elementary operational instruction/training, and accelerate business innovation and modernization goals.

o USDA will provide a test plan with procedures, processes, and instructions.

o Logistics and reporting will be determined in partnership between USDA and the offeror. This will be prior to the start/execution of the PoC active period.

o The vendor will provide the environment to be utilized for the proof of concept.

o This may include providing software licenses for the offered alternative solution for multiple USDA environments and user personas. Offeror should anticipate enough licenses to adequately test the SOW requirements.

o This may also include creating test table sites to demonstrate the alternatives of current Microsoft functionalities.

o USDA will provide the vendor with the primary point of contact(s) for overall management and USDA participants.

1.4.2.2 The USDA will evaluate the following elements of the proposed solution throughout the Proof of Concept to determine:

If meets USDA’s requirement for an Active Directory environment or similar solution and is configurable to be highly available and secured at the High-Value Asset (HVA) level.

The proposed configuration management capabilities offered and the ability to deploy software and software updates to over 100,000+ systems across the United States (U.S.)

and its territories.

If an enterprise knowledge and content management solution integrates with desktop operating systems file systems enabling personal cloud storage and shared storage to allow automatic syncing.

If the proposed solution offers enterprise business capabilities that provide similar features and capabilities currently consumed by the USDA.

If the proposed solution satisfies hosting requirements for all on-premises hosting solutions that support multiple USDA Mission Areas.

If the proposed solution satisfies hosting requirements for all cloud hosting solutions that support multiple USDA Mission Areas.

If the proposed solution meets all required security objectives and if those also satisfy President Biden’s Executive Order for Cyber Security and Departmental Regulations.

If the proposed solution satisfies USDA’s Records Management program initiatives and requirements in accordance with Federal Regulations and Departmental Regulations.

If the proposed solution satisfies all of USDA’s eDiscovery and Insider Risk Management requirements in accordance with Executive Orders and Departmental Regulations.

If an enterprise knowledge and content management solution integrates with desktop operating systems file systems enabling personal cloud storage and shared storage to allow automatic syncing.

If the proposed solution offers enterprise business capabilities that provide similar features and capabilities currently consumed by the USDA end user.

2.0 Amendment of RFP prior to RFP Closing Time

The Government reserves the right to revise or amend the specifications or the RFP prior to the RFP closing time. Such revisions or amendments will be communicated by amendments to this RFP and issued via sam.gov. If such amendments require material changes in quantities or prices, the RFP closing date may be postponed by enough days to enable offerors to revise their offers. In such cases, the amendment will include an announcement of the new RFP closing date and time.

2.0 BASIS OF AWARD AND EVALUATION FACTORS

2.1 Basis of Award

The USDA will select the offeror whose overall proposal is determined to be the Best Value consistent with the evaluation criteria and in the best interest of the USDA. For purposes of this RFP, Best value means the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the Government's estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirement. In the event of consideration of alternative solutions, for the purposes of Phase 2 evaluations, confidence ratings are significantly more important than Price and the Government may compare alternative solutions to Microsoft based on USDA’s historical use and known functionality as well as the EBS Transition Assessment Report, Attachment D. The Government may elect to award to other than the lowest priced proposal, or to other than the highest technically rated, based on the results of the limited tradeoff analysis as the lowest priced alternative proposal with high confidence will advance to phase 2.

Offerors should propose their best approach to meeting the requirements of the RFP. The Government anticipates selecting the best-suited Offeror from initial responses, without engaging in formal exchanges with Offerors. Offerors are strongly encouraged to submit their best technical approach and price in response to this RFP.

Due to available funding and budget, the government reserves the right to award for less than a one-year base period. Offerors should include a monthly pricing tab or info within their proposal.

2.2 Evaluation Factors

The evaluation factors are as follows:

Phase 1 –Responsiveness to Brand Name or Equivalent and Price

Factor 1 – Responsiveness: Competitors shall meet each sku/requirement or equivalent as stated on the Attachment A Vendor Price Worksheet. The Government will consider this as responsiveness to the RFP in relation to an Enterprise environment per the Statement of Work and Price Worksheet.

Factor 2 – Price: Lowest price offer in each proposed solution category will advance to Phase 2 if the offeror receives a high confidence rating in the past performance evaluation.

Factor 3 – Past performance: Offeror’s must submit up to 3 past performance references that the Government will assess. References must be similar in size, scope, and complexity, and completed within the past 3 years and will be assigned a confidence rating. Lowest priced offerors in each category with a High Confidence rating under the Past Performance factor will advance to Phase 2.

Phase 2 – Written Technical Solution, Proof of Concept, and Price

Factor 1 - Written Technical

Factor 2 - Proof of Concept

a. PoC Strategy/Plan

b. PoC Execution

Factor 3 – Price

For evaluation purposes, in order to capture the total cost of ownership, use B02 Attachment F Estimated Cost of Maintaining Concurrent Licenses to add to your quote for your proposed transition period.

Phase 2 offerors will be evaluated on a best value basis. Written Technical Solution and Proof of Concept are more important than Price. Price is an important factor and will be considered in the best value determination. The Government will consider the benefits and risks associated with the Offeror’s proposed approaches to arrive at a confidence assessment of the Offeror’s likelihood of successfully performing the work and meeting the requirements of the RFP. The table below shows the ratings the Government will assign in its evaluation of these factors. The Microsoft solution that has advanced to Phase 2, due to its lowest price and Phase 1 high confidence rating, will receive an automatic high confidence rating in Phase 2.

The confidence ratings are defined as follows:

Table 1:

High Confidence (Low Risk)

The Government has high confidence the vendor understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, and will be successful in performing the contract with little or no Government intervention.

Some Confidence (Moderate Risk)

The Government has some confidence the vendor understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, and will be successful in performing the contract with some Government intervention.

Low Confidence (High Risk)

The Government has low confidence the vendor understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, or will be successful in performing the contract even with Government intervention.

2.3 Evaluation Approach

Evaluations will be conducted in accordance with FAR15.3. USDA intends to utilize a 2 phase down-select evaluation. The evaluation process will consider the following:

2.3.1 Phase 1 Evaluation of Factor 1 – Responsiveness to Brand Name or Equivalent and Price

The Government will assess a “go” or “no-go” that the vendor meets all the requirements of the SOW and will be successful in performing the contract based on its submission of the requirements worksheet for Enterprise Business Solutions.

Although price information will be provided during the phase 1 Price Worksheet submission, price will not receive a confidence rating but will be evaluated to determine which vendors move on to phase 2. The lowest priced offeror for each solution with the highest confidence rating in Past Performance will move on to phase 2.

2.3.2 Phase 1 Evaluation of Factor 2- Past Performance

The Government will evaluate past performance with the use of confidence ratings. Past performance should encompass projects of similar size, scope, and complexity in order to be rated high confidence.

2.3.3 Phase 2 Evaluation of Factor 1 – Written Technical Solution The government will further assess its level of confidence that the contractor will successfully perform the requirements of the RFP through review of the offeror’s submission of its technical solution and applicable transition plan. Offerors will receive an overall confidence rating on its written technical submission.

2.3.4 Phase 2 Evaluation Factor 2- Proof of Concept

The Government will assess its level of confidence with an up to 4-week proof of concept that the vendor can successfully perform transition related activities if an alternative solution is being proposed.

2.3.5 Phase 2 Evaluation Factor 3- Total Cost of Ownership

For alternative solutions, the Government will further evaluate price in Phase 2. Estimated cost for maintaining concurrent licenses will be added to alternative vendor’s proposals based on the timeframe identified in their written technical solution and transition plan to determine the total cost of ownership of an alternative solution. This may be used in the best value determination.

3.0 Source Selection Team

3.1 Source Selection Authority

For this acquisition, the Source Selection Authority will be the Contracting Officer, John Selenske.

3.2 Source Selection Evaluation Board

For this acquisition, the Source Selection Evaluation Board will consist of the following members, subject to change:

Wesley Manning Janell Duke Reginia Hinrickson

4.0 Summary

In Phase 2, the government reserves the right to make an award to other than the lowest price or highest technically rated. The government will make a single award contract to the best value offeror, all factors considered.

After award, Phase 2 unsuccessful offerors will be notified and provided a debriefing of award pursuant to FAR 15.5.