CORHQ-24-R-0422-P0003.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF AWARD

1. CONTRACT ID CODE

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO. 5. PROJECT NO. (If applicble)

7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6) CODE

FDIC 3700/56 (3-08)

FACILITY CODE

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICIATION NO.

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers is extended, is not extended.

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment by signing in Block 15b below and including the signed amendment with the offeror's proposal.

12. N/A

13. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO MODIFICATION OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

CHECK ONE A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO THE CHANGE ORDERS CLAUSE

B. THIS MODIFICATION IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF THE FDIC CONTRACTING OFFICER

C. THIS MODIFICATION IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO MUTUAL AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remain unchanged and in full force and effect.

15C. DATE SIGNED

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION

PAGE OF PAGES

6. ISSUED BY CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., street, county, State and ZIP Code) (X)

CODE

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

CORHQ-24-R-0422 / 0003

The purpose of this Amendment is to clarify and revise the Section M Evaluation Factors for Award for BOA and Task Order 1 for solicitation number, CORHQ‐24‐R‐0422; specifically in regard to Advisory Down Select – Factor A. The following revision was made to the Section M Evaluation Factors for Award for BOA and Task Order 1 document as the four questions that Offerors were to respond to for Factor A are not sub‐factors.

FROM:

Each of the four (4) criteria listed in the Advisory Down Select will be evaluated using Confidence

Ratings. The FDIC will only advise those proposals that achieve a High Confidence rating for Factor A to proceed to Phase II.

Confidence Rating Scale

Rating Description

High Confidence The Phase I response did include favorable responses to all Factor A’s four criteria, including adequate substantiation of those responses.

Low Confidence The Phase I response did not include favorable responses to all Factor A’s four criteria or provide adequate substantiation of those responses.

TO:

Advisory Down Select – Factor A will be evaluated using Confidence Ratings. The FDIC will only advise those proposals that achieve a High Confidence rating for Factor A to proceed to Phase II.

Confidence Rating Scale

Rating Description

High Confidence The Phase I response did include favorable responses to all Factor A’s four criteria, including adequate substantiation of those responses.

Low Confidence The Phase I response did not include favorable responses to all

Everything included in this amendment and in addition to the unchanged requirements of the original solicitation and prior amendments, are in full force and effect.

Evaluation Factors for Award for BOA and Task Order 1

BOA EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

7.3.2‐17 – Best Value Evaluation Process – August 2018

(a) The FDIC will review all proposals for responsiveness and all Offerors (including subcontractors) for compliance with 12 CFR 366, and will evaluate individual proposals against the evaluation criteria. The FDIC may exclude an offeror from further consideration if it submits an Offer that does not conform to the proposal submission requirements.

Advisory Down Select – Factor A

Advisory Down Select – Factor A will be evaluated using Confidence Ratings. The FDIC will only advise those proposals that achieve a High Confidence rating for Factor A to proceed to Phase II.

Confidence Rating Scale

Rating Description

High Confidence The Phase I response did include favorable responses to all Factor A’s four criteria, including adequate substantiation of those responses.

Low Confidence The Phase I response did not include favorable responses to all

Mission Capability – Factor B (Company and Personnel Certifications and Experiences) & Factor C (Technical Management Approach)

The two (2) Mission Capability Factors, Factors B and C will be evaluated using Confidence Ratings.

Please note that a single confidence rating will be assigned for Factor C and includes both the

Offeror’s written response and oral presentation. The factors will measure the FDIC’s confidence that the Offeror understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, and will be successful in performing the required services.

Confidence Rating Scale

Rating Description

High Confidence The FDIC has high confidence that the Offeror understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, and will be successful in performing the contract with little or no FDIC intervention.

Some Confidence The FDIC has some confidence that the Offeror understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, and will be successful in performing the contract with some FDIC intervention.

Low Confidence The FDIC has low confidence that the Offeror understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, or will be successful in performing the contract even with FDIC intervention.

Price – Factor D To maintain a fair evaluation and obtain the best possible pricing for each LCAT’s rate, the FDIC will not disclose the number of hours it has allocated to each LCAT’s role to any Offerors. To establish a total value for each LCAT’s rate proposed by each Offeror, the FDIC Price Evaluation Team will apply a pre‐determined number of hours for each LCAT role to each proposed and mapped LCAT rate from each Offeror and its proposed rates. To establish the total evaluated award value for the BOA, the

Price Evaluation Team will calculate the LCAT rates against the pre‐determined hours.

Price proposals will be evaluated with respect to completeness, reasonableness, and, as appropriate, realism. The Contracting Officer intends to evaluate the Overall Evaluated Price (OEP) for each offeror.

Completeness. Offerors must submit their proposed prices in accordance with the Pricing Schedule. Offerors must submit fully loaded rates, as applicable. Offers failing to propose a price for all labor categories or items may receive no further consideration and may be eliminated.

Reasonableness. FDIC will evaluate prices using one or more of the following techniques.

(a) Comparing the proposed prices to those of other offerors.

(b) Comparing the proposed prices to FDIC's independent estimate and those in other FDIC contracts.

(c) Comparing the proposed prices to the prices in the company's GSA Schedule or commercial price list.

Prices that are extreme (i.e., too high or too low) may be judged unreasonable.

Realism. Technical elements of price (e.g., the number and qualifications of personnel, material or travel quantities) that do not reflect a clear understanding of requirements, are too low, or are otherwise inconsistent with an offeror’s technical proposal may be considered unrealistic.

Overall Evaluated Price (OEP): The FDIC will compute an overall evaluated price (OEP) for each proposal using the Offeror’s proposed hourly rates. This computation will be for evaluation purposes only.

BOA Level Rate Determination ‐ All T&M labor rates shall be reviewed to determine fair and reasonable independent of any additional discounts offered.

TASK ORDER 1 EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

7.3.2‐17 Best Value Evaluation Process (August 2018) for Task Order 1

Mission Capability – Factor A (Technical Management Approach) and Factor B (Key Personnel) The two Mission Capability Factors, Factors A and B will be evaluated using Confidence Ratings.

The factors will measure the FDIC’s confidence that the Offeror understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, proposes staff with the required expertise, and will be successful in performing the required services.

Confidence Rating Scale

Rating Description

High Confidence The FDIC has high confidence that the Offeror understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, proposes staff with the required expertise, and will be successful in performing the contract with little or no FDIC intervention.

Some Confidence The FDIC has some confidence that the Offeror understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, proposes staff with the required expertise, and will be successful in performing the contract with some FDIC intervention.

Low Confidence The FDIC has low confidence that the Offeror understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, proposes staff with the required expertise, or will be successful in performing the contract even with FDIC intervention.

Past Performance – Factor C (Past Performance) 7.3.2‐20 Evaluation of Past Performance (July 2008)

(a) Past Performance Factor. Under the Past Performance factor, the performance confidence assessment is an evaluation of an offeror's past work record to assess the FDIC's confidence in the probability that offeror can successfully perform, as proposed. The FDIC will evaluate the offeror's demonstrated record of contract compliance in supplying services that meet user's needs, including management of cost and schedule. The Past Performance Evaluation is accomplished by reviewing aspects of an offeror's relevant past performance, focusing on and targeting performance that is relevant to the Mission Capability sub‐factors. In determining relevance, contracts of similar project complexity, scope, type, and schedule are considered.

Data on efforts performed by other divisions within offeror’s organization and by critical subcontractors may also be considered, if such resources significantly influence the offeror’s performance of the proposed effort.

(b) The FDIC may consider as relevant contracts performed for agencies of the federal, state or local governments, and for commercial customers. Each offeror will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment, which is the rating for the Past Performance factor. While the Past Performance Evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the Mission

Capability sub‐factors, the resulting performance confidence assessment is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance.

(c) Where the relevant performance record indicates performance problems, the FDIC will consider the number and severity of the problems and the appropriateness and effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised). The FDIC may review more recent contracts or performance evaluations to ensure corrective actions have been implemented and to evaluate their effectiveness.

(d) The following criteria will be used to determine relevancy of previous contracts:

HIGHLY RELEVANT ‐ The magnitude and the complexity of the effort on this contract are essentially the same as the solicitation.

RELEVANT ‐ Some dissimilarity in the magnitude or the complexity of the effort on this contract exists, but it contains most of what the solicitation requires.

NOT RELEVANT ‐ Performance on this contract contains little similarity to the performance required by this solicitation.

Each offeror will receive one of the ratings described below:

RATING DEFINITION

Exceptional/High Confidence ‐ Based on the offeror's performance record, essentially no uncertainty exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Very Good/Significant Confidence ‐ Based on the offeror's performance record, little

Satisfactory/Confidence ‐ Based on the offeror's performance record, some uncertainty exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral/Unknown Confidence ‐ No performance record can be established.

Marginal/Little Confidence ‐ Based on the offeror's performance record, substantial uncertainty exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Changes to the offeror's existing processes may be necessary in order to achieve contract requirements.

Unsatisfactory/No Confidence ‐ Based on the offeror's performance record, extreme

(e) Discussions may be conducted as necessary to provide the offeror an opportunity to address any adverse past performance, or clarify the relevancy of the offeror's past performance information or address minor clerical issues. (f) Offerors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance, but will receive a "Neutral/Unknown

Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor.

Price – Factor D To maintain a fair evaluation and obtain the best possible pricing for each LCAT’s rate, the FDIC will not disclose the number of hours it has allocated to each LCAT’s role to any Offerors. To establish a total value for each LCAT’s rate proposed by each Offeror, the FDIC Price Evaluation

Team will apply a pre‐determined number of hours for each LCAT role to each proposed and mapped LCAT rate from each Offeror and its proposed rates. To establish the total evaluated award value for Task Order 1, the Price Evaluation Team will calculate the LCAT rates against the pre‐determined hours.

Price proposals will be evaluated with respect to completeness, reasonableness, and, as appropriate realism. The Contracting Officer intends to evaluate the Overall Evaluated Price

(OEP) for each offeror.

Completeness. Offerors must submit their proposed prices in accordance with their proposed BOA Pricing Schedule. Offerors must submit fully loaded rates, as applicable. Offers failing to propose a price for all labor categories or items may receive no further consideration and may be eliminated.

Reasonableness. FDIC will evaluate prices using one or more of the following techniques.

(a) Comparing the proposed prices to those of other offerors.

(b) Comparing the proposed prices to FDIC's independent estimate and those in other FDIC contracts.

(c) Comparing the proposed prices to the prices proposed for at the BOA level.

Prices that are extreme (i.e., too high or too low) may be judged unreasonable.

Realism. Technical elements of price (e.g., the number and qualifications of personnel, material or travel quantities) that do not reflect a clear understanding of requirements, are too low, or are otherwise inconsistent with an offeror’s technical proposal may be considered unrealistic.

DOA/ASB

600 North Pearl Street, Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75201 sfiscus@fdic.gov

(972) 761-8505 sfiscus@fdic.gov