ATCH_24_-_Eval_Criteria_A4.docx

Solicitation No. D13PS00314 – U.S. Department of the Interior, Business Integration Office (BIO) Assistance Addendum to FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION 52.212-2 EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL ITEMS (JAN 1999)

1. EVALUATION PLAN

1.1. BASIS OF AWARD

1.1.1. Award of a single indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity contract and three initial task orders will be made on a competitive best value basis, using “tradeoffs” among price and non-price factors. The Government may elect to award to other than the lowest price offeror. All evaluation factors, other than cost or price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price. However, if one or more offerors have equal ratings for the non-price factors, then the price factor will become more important in the best value determination for award. The following non-price factors are listed in descending order of importance:

Factor 1: Management Solution Factor 2: Key Personnel Factor 3: Functional Personnel Factor 4: Technical Personnel Factor 5: Transition Plan Factor 6: Relevant Past and Present Performance Factor 7: Cost/Price

1.1.2. The evaluation will consider the Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) contract proposal and the proposals for the three initial task orders. However, as specified below, certain task order proposals will not be evaluated against every technical evaluation factor.

1.1.2.1. ID/IQ Contract. The ID/IQ contract will be evaluated utilizing information provided in the proposal volumes listed below and against the following evaluation factors:

Proposal Volumes:

Volume 1: Management and Technical (ID/IQ Contract) Volume 2: Relevant Past and Present Performance Volume 3: Cost/Price

Evaluation Factors:

Factor 1: Management Solution Factor 6: Relevant Past and Present Performance Factor 7: Cost/Price

1.1.2.2. Business Integration Office (BIO) Task Order. The BIO task order will be evaluated utilizing information provided in the proposal volumes listed below and against the following evaluation factors:

Proposal Volumes:

Volume 3: Cost/Price Volume 4: BIO Support Task Order

Evaluation Factors:

Factor 1: Management Solution Factor 2: Key Personnel Factor 3: Functional Personnel Factor 4: Technical Personnel Factor 5: Transition Plan Factor 7: Cost/Price

1.1.2.3. Acquisition Services Directorate (AQD) Task Order: The AQD task order will be evaluated utilizing information provided in the proposal volumes listed below and against the following evaluation factors:

Proposal Volumes:

Volume 3: Cost/Price Volume 5: AQD Support Task Order

Evaluation Factors:

Factor 1: Management Solution Factor 2: Key Personnel Factor 5: Transition Plan Factor 7: Cost/Price

1.1.2.4. Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) Task Order: The BSEE task order will be evaluated utilizing information provided in the proposal volumes listed below and against the following evaluation factors:

Proposal Volumes:

Volume 3: Cost/Price Volume 6: BSEE Support Task Order

Evaluation Factors:

Factor 1: Management Solution Factor 7: Cost/Price

1.2. NUMBER OF CONTRACTS AND TASK ORDERS TO BE AWARDED

It is the Government’s intention to award a single Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) contract as a result of this solicitation. The Government also intends to award three initial task orders for the Business Integration Office (BIO), Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE), and the Acquisition Services Directorate (AQD) as a result of this solicitation. The Government reserves the right to not award a contract or task orders as a result of this solicitation, depending upon the quality of the proposal(s) submitted and the availability of funds.

1.3. REJECTION OF UNREALISTIC OFFERS

Unrealistically high or low proposed prices can be grounds for eliminating a proposal from the competition. Such a proposal can be viewed as indicative of lack of understanding of the Government’s desired objective. Cost realism means that the costs in an Offeror’s proposal are realistic for the work to be performed; reflect a clear understanding of the requirements; and are consistent with the various elements of the Offeror’s technical proposal.

The Government can reject any quote that is determined to be unrealistic of program commitments, including terms and conditions, and evaluation criteria or is unrealistically high or low in cost, such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program.

In addition, offerors are cautioned against submitting a materially unbalanced offer. Offers that are determined to be materially unbalanced can be rejected. The Government will analyze offers to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to prices or separately priced line items. An offer is mathematically unbalanced if it is based on prices which are significantly less than the cost for some contract line items and significantly overstated in relation to cost for others. An offer is materially and mathematically unbalanced, if:

a. There is a reasonable doubt that the offer would result in the lowest overall cost to the Government, even though it is the lowest evaluated offer; or

b. The offer is so grossly unbalanced that its acceptance would be tantamount to allowing an advance payment.

2. EVALUATION FACTORS

2.1. NON-PRICE FACTORS

Proposals will be evaluated based upon the factors listed below. With the context of these factors, offerors are encouraged to demonstrate the employment of enterprise practices and processes, experience and understanding of the challenges of achieving efficiencies and effectiveness in a multiple-project, multiple-system environment, creative and innovative approaches, and demonstrated successes in work environments similar to that of this requirement.

2.1.1. Factor 1: Management Solution

A review for the Management Solution factor will consist of a determination and analysis of strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies. The Management Solution factor will be evaluated on the basis of the following Evaluation Elements:

1.1 Company strategic decision. Demonstrates an overall strategic decision to be in the field of Federal Government Financial Service Support for the SAP and PRISM Applications.

1.2 Staffing quality methods. Demonstrates a sound and reasonable approach to hiring and retaining qualified workers and key personnel. Demonstrates sound methods used to address substandard performance. Demonstrates a thorough understanding of the current work environment including a practical approach to managing virtual teams located in two geographic locations.

1.3 Production Support and Development approach. Demonstrates a proposed approach to providing production support and development services that aligns with the work environment and illustrates a clear understanding of requirements in this area. Demonstrates an understanding of the leadership and management required of the key personnel in this area. (ID/IQ Contract and BIO Task Order Only)

1.4 Technical support approach. Demonstrates a proposed approach to providing technical support services that aligns with the work environment and illustrates a clear understanding of requirements in this area. Demonstrates an understanding of the leadership and management required of the key personnel in this area. (ID/IQ Contract and BIO Task Order Only)

1.5 Project management approach. Demonstrates a proposed approach to providing project management services that aligns with the work environment and illustrates a clear understanding of requirements in this area. Demonstrates an understanding of the leadership and management required of the key personnel in this area. (ID/IQ Contract and BIO Task Order Only)

1.6 Offeror’s Contract Management approach.

· Demonstrates that the contract management approach aligns with requirements for all required support services (ID/IQ Contract and all three initial task orders).

· Demonstrates an acceptable approach to deliverable reporting (The three initial task orders only).

· Proposes realistic, quantifiable performance measures that align with requirements across the entire organization and include the scope of this entire contract/task order (The three initial task orders only).

· Provides recommended contract incentives and/or disincentives that are innovative, yet practical in terms of measurement and fairness (The three initial task orders only).

1.7 Organizational Experience. The offeror will be evaluated based on its demonstration of corporate management structure as well as the structure of the proposed team and the relationship between these organizations and all subcontractors proposed to perform major or critical aspects of this requirement (as defined by the offeror) shall be listed. Consideration will be given to the following:

1) Demonstration of ability to implement projects of similar size and scope;

2) Demonstration of enterprise practices, processes, experience, and understanding of the challenges of achieving multiple-application environments; innovative approaches; and lessons learned.

1.8 Quality of teaming arrangement(s)/subcontract(s). The offeror will be evaluated on demonstration of the ability to team, to mitigate risk of teaming arrangement(s)/subcontract(s), ability to perform the work as a team, performance as a team with proposed teaming partner(s)/subcontractor(s) in the past.

1.9 Support Approach. Demonstrates a proposed approach to providing the required services that aligns with the work environment and illustrates a clear understanding of requirements. Demonstrates an understanding of the leadership and management required of the personnel and/or key personnel. (AQD Task Order and BSEE Task Order Only)

2.1.2. Factor 2: Key Personnel

A review for the Key Personnel factor will consist of a determination and analysis of strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies. The Key Personnel factor will be evaluated on the basis of the following Evaluation Elements:

2.1 Suitability of experience of key personnel. The extent to which proposed key personnel meet or exceed the required work experience for each position as stated in each task order Performance Work Statement (PWS) requirements.

2.2 Key personnel project management certification. Provides evidence that proposed key personnel for project manager positions are certified Project Management Professionals (PMP)® and that their certifications are up-to-date.

2.3 Suitability of training/education for key personnel. The extent to which the proposed key personnel meet or exceed the training and/or education requirements required for each key position.

2.4 Availability of key personnel. Demonstrate that all key personnel are available for the BIO Task Order and the AQD Task Order inclusion of signed commitment letters.

2.1.3. Factor 3: Functional Personnel

A review for the Functional Personnel factor will consist of a determination and analysis of strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies. The Functional Personnel factor will be evaluated on the basis of the following Evaluation Elements:

3.1 Suitability of experience of functional personnel. The extent to which proposed functional personnel and/or labor categories described within the Staffing Plan meet or exceed the required work experience needed in this area as documented in the PWS. For the BIO Task order only, this includes SAP and PRISM module functional experts and training staff supporting the Business Process Division.

3.2 Suitability of training/education of functional resources. The extent to which proposed functional personnel and/or labor categories described within the Staffing Plan meet or exceed the required training and education for the position(s) required. For the BIO task order only, this includes staff supporting the Business Process Division.

2.1.4. Factor 4: Technical Personnel

A review for the Technical Personnel factor will consist of a determination and analysis of strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies. The Technical Personnel factor will be evaluated on the basis of the following Evaluation Elements:

4.1. Suitability of experience of technical personnel. The extent to which proposed technical personnel and/or labor categories described within the Staffing Plan meet or exceed the required work experience needed in this area as documented in the PWS. For the BIO task order only, this includes all staff necessary to support the Applications Management; Technical Infrastructure, Security, and Quality Management; and Production Management Divisions, including ABAP and BI Developers, SAP System and Database Administrators, and GRC, Rational, and Solution Manager experts.

4.2. Suitability of training/education of technical resources. The extent to which proposed technical personnel and/or labor categories described within the Staffing Plan meet or exceed the required training and education for the position(s) required. For the BIO task order only, this includes the staff supporting the Applications Management; Technical Infrastructure, Security, and Quality Management; and Production Management Divisions.

2.1.5. Factor 5: Transition Plan

A review for the Transition Plan factor will consist of a determination and analysis of strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies. The Transition Plan factor will be evaluated on the basis of the following Evaluation Elements:

5.1 Suitability of the transition plan. Demonstrates a sound, comprehensive, and reasonable approach to the transition from the current BIO support contract to the awardee. Includes a comprehensive, resource-loaded project plan, along with related assumptions.

5.2 Knowledge transfer. Provides a realistic approach to working with the current Contractors to facilitate the transition of each of the Task Order services from the current Contractors with minimal disruption to the provided services.

5.3 Transition risks and risk mitigation recommendations. Provides a comprehensive listing of transition risks, their likely impacts on affected personnel, and practical mitigation measures to reduce negative impact.

2.1.6. Factor 6: Relevant Past and Present Performance

A review for the Relevant Past and Present Performance factor will consist of a determination and analysis of strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies. In addition, offerors will be evaluated on the extent to which the proposal demonstrates engagements with similarity in size, scope and complexity to the PWS requirements, as well as the recency of the past performance references. The Relevant Past and Present Performance factor will be evaluated on the basis of the following Evaluation Elements:

6.1 Past performance questionnaires. Receive positive responses to past performance questionnaires, including ability to: manage staff, retain personnel, transition successfully, maintain high levels of business relations, stay within schedule/budget, and perform quality services.

6.2 Past performance – other sources. Other past performance information obtained through other sources (e.g., PPIRS, etc.) demonstrates consistently high quality of service provided on other similar federal Government contracts.

2.1.6.1. Unknown Past and Present Performance

In some circumstances Past and Present Performance may receive an unknown rating. In the event that an offeror does not have a record of relevant past or present performance or information on past or present performance is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably. (Reference: FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv))

2.1.6.2. Past and Present Performance Problems

Where relevant performance records indicate performance problems, the Government 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 Government may review more recent contracts or performance evaluations to ensure corrective actions have been implemented and to evaluate their effectiveness. The Offeror is required to clearly demonstrate management actions employed in overcoming problems and the effects of those actions, in terms of improvements achieved or problems rectified. Submittal of quality performance indicators or other management indicators that clearly support that an Offeror has overcome past problems is required.

2.2. FACTOR 7: COST/PRICE

2.2.1. The Cost/Price Volume will be evaluated separately from the Management and Technical Volume and Relevant Past and Present Performance Volume. The offeror is expected to propose competitive, reasonable, and realistic prices for the ID/IQ contract labor rates and realistic cost and prices for all three task orders. An evaluation of the Cost/Price Volume will be made to determine if it is both realistic and reasonable for the work to be performed, reflects a clear understanding of the requirements, and is consistent with the Management and Technical volume and the Task Order Volumes. In evaluating Cost/Price, the ID/IQ labor rates and the individual price for all three initial task orders will be evaluated. The individuals price for the three initial task orders when combined are significantly more important than the ID/IQ labor rates.

2.2.2. CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBILITY

Offerors shall be evaluated to determine the extent to which the offeror is responsible within the meaning of FAR 9.104-1. A prospective contractor must affirmatively demonstrate its responsibility, including, the responsibility of its proposed subcontractors. No award shall be made unless the contracting officer makes an affirmative determination of responsibility.

3. COMPETITIVE RANGE

In accordance with FAR 15.306(c), after evaluating all proposals, if it has been determined to be in the best interest of the Government to establish a competitive range, the Contracting Officer reserves the right to limit the competitive range for purposes of efficiency. The Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated technical proposals (10 U.S.C. 2305(b)(4) and 41 U.S.C. 253b(d)). The competitive range will be comprised of all the most highly rated proposals, based on the ratings of each proposal against all evaluation criteria. The Contracting Officer will promptly notify offerors of any decision to exclude them from the competitive range.

1 Attachment #24 - Amend 000004 Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104