B08_Attachment_2_Evaluation.doc

52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors—Commercial Products and Commercial Services. (Sep 2023)

(a) Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal conforms to the solicitation and represents the best value to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and sub-factors listed below. The Government will consider:

Experience

Communication

Knowledge

Past Performance

The factors listed above are in descending order of importance.

All evaluation factors other than cost/price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost/price; however, cost/price will contribute substantially to the selection decision. The evaluated price will not be rated or scored, but will be a consideration for reasonableness in the final source selection decision.

Responses must include pricing for both the base period and all option periods.

TECHNICAL EVALUTION FACTORS

(1) Factor 1 –Experience: (highest rated portion)

The offeror shall submit a narrative demonstrating their experience in providing the Government with liability valuations for federal pensions using actuarial methods and assumptions in accordance with SFFAS. This narrative shall discuss their technical knowledge and experience in data review, reconciliation of the benefit obligation, and valuation reporting for federal pensions.

(2) Factor 2 – Communication

The offeror shall submit a narrative response that demonstrates their ability to coordinate with the various stakeholders effectively. Additionally, the narrative should explain their ability to adequately answer questions that arise during the audit process in a clear and concise fashion.

(3) Factor 3 – Knowledge of applicable laws, regulations and Federal criteria, and interaction with independent auditors

The offeror shall submit a narrative that demonstrates their knowledge in audit regulations and compliance. This narrative shall address their knowledge of SFFAS 5 information for pension, other retirement benefits, and other postemployment benefits for federal clients. Additionally, the offeror shall explain their experience with adequately responding to the independent auditor’s requests in a timely fashion.

(4) Factor 4 – Past Performance

Submit a minimum of three (3) and a maximum of five (5) relevant projects (as the prime contractor) that are similar in size, scope, and complexity to the work requirements specified in the solicitation. Size, scope, and complexity are further defined as follows:

Demonstrate the ability to provide all labor, management, supervision, knowledge, tools, materials, equipment to complete a project of this size and complexity.

Projects submitted for the offeror shall be completed within the past five (5) years of the date of issuance of the solicitation. For all submitted projects, the description of the project shall clearly describe the scope of work performed and the relevancy to the project requirements of this RFP as it relates to size, scope, and complexity.

Pricing must be quoted on a lump sum, Firm Fixed Price basis. Outlined position categories should be updated with the Contractor’s own categories.

(b) Options. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

(c) A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer’s specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

52.212-2 Evaluation—Commercial Products and Commercial Services (Nov 2021)

TECHNICAL EVALUATION Factor 1 –Experience

Ability to perform a liability valuation of the United States Park Police Retirement System in accordance with SFFAS. Making simplifications, estimates, and computational short-cuts, using actuarial assumptions to develop measurements, and performing tests to ensure the accuracy of results. Providing a document which describes the procedures utilized to develop the pension liability estimate, supporting the related financial disclosure.

· Outstanding: Ability is based on hands-on experience in all of these areas: Government-wide, DOI and USPP.

· Good: Ability is based on hands-on experience in the following areas: DOI and USPP

· Acceptable: Ability is based on hands-on experience in the following area: DOI

· Marginal: Ability is based on hands-on experience in the following area: Government-wide

· Unacceptable: No hands-on experience in any of the above categories.

TECHNICAL EVALUATION FACTOR 2 – Communication

1) Ability to Interface with the external auditor and internal staff responsible for performing the annual A-123 Appendix A review.

· Outstanding: Ability is based on hands-on experience in all of these areas: Explaining procedures and providing support for the results of the annual USPP pension liability estimate to the NPS financial statement audit team and A-123 staff. Interacting with NPS, D.C Government and USPP management to obtain data necessary to perform the pension liability calculation. Providing federal managers with consulting advice concerning all aspects of the process.

· Good: Ability is based on hands-on experience in the following areas: Explaining procedures and providing support for the results of a federal pension liability estimate to financial statement audit teams and A-123 staff for a Federal agency. Interacting with Federal, and local government agencies to obtain data necessary to perform a pension liability calculation. Providing federal managers with consulting advice concerning all aspects of the process.

· Acceptable: Ability is based on hands-on experience in the following areas: Explaining procedures and providing support for the results of a pension liability estimate to financial statement audit teams outside the Federal environment. Interacting with management and business partners to obtain data necessary to perform a pension liability calculation. Providing managers with consulting advice concerning all aspects of the process.

· Marginal: Ability is based on hands-on experience in the following areas: Interacting with management and business partners to obtain data necessary to perform a pension liability calculation. Providing managers with consulting advice concerning all aspects of the process.

· Unacceptable: No hands-on experience in any of the above categories.

TECHNICAL EVALUATION FACTOR 3 – Knowledge of applicable laws, regulations and Federal criteria, and interaction with independent auditors.

Ability to identify regulations and other criteria relevant to the development of a federal pension liability estimate and to interpret them. Ability to timely and accurately respond to requests from independent auditors, including providing formal documentation which explains and justifies the pension liability estimate within the federal environment.

· Outstanding: Ability is based on hands-on experience with the National Park Service (NPS) in all areas listed above.

· Good: Ability is based on hands-on experience in all areas listed above, demonstrated within the Department of Interior (DOI).

· Acceptable: Ability is based on hands-on experience in all areas listed above, demonstrated at a federal agency other than DOI.

· Marginal: Ability is based on hands-on experience in some of the areas listed above.

· Unacceptable: No hands-on experience in any of the above categories.

TECHNICAL EVALUATION FACTOR 4 – Past Performance The Government will evaluate the offeror’s past performance information subsequent to the technical evaluation. The offeror must have demonstrated successful operations and maintenance of similar systems, to include scale and complexity.

When assessing performance risks, the Government will focus on the past performance of the offeror as it relates to all acquisition requirements, such as the offeror’s record of performing according to specifications, including standards of good workmanship; the offeror’s record of controlling and forecasting costs; the offeror’s adherence to contract schedules, including the administrative aspects of performance; the offeror’s reputation for reasonable and cooperative behavior and commitment to customer satisfaction; and generally, the offeror’s business-like concern for the interest of the customer.

The Government will consider the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in the offeror’s performance. The lack of a relevant performance record may result in an unknown performance risk assessment, which will neither be used to the advantage or disadvantage of the offeror.

Cost/Price

a. Offeror’s cost proposal will not be point scored or adjectively scored but will be evaluated on price reasonableness. The price proposal will also be used as an aid to determine the Offeror understands of the requirements of the solicitation, price reasonableness and to assess the validity of the offeror’s approach to managing and performing the work.

b. Total potential price, inclusive of all FFP requirements combined with FFP quote totals for all years will be considered the overall value of each quote.

c. The offeror shall submit a price proposal separate from all other volumes; any pricing information found in the technical or past performance volumes will be removed prior to evaluation.

d. The Government will evaluate the price proposal for reasonableness. The Government will also evaluate cost with regard to the ability of the offeror to meet requirements in terms of skills required, complexity of disciplines and job difficulty, if the Government deems such analysis necessary.

(End of provision)4