Source_Selection_Plan.doc

Source Selection Information - See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

SOURCE SELECTION TEAM

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

EMPLOYEE BENEFITS SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

OFFICE OF POLICY AND RESEARCH

11 JUNE 2013

COORDINATION: ___________________________________________

Contracting Specialist

Date

SSEB Chair

APPROVED: ___________________________________________

SSA

1.0

NATURE AND SCOPE OF THE ACQUISITION

2.0

SOURCE SELECTION ORGANIZATION AND RESPONSIBILITIES

The evaluation process and source selection for this acquisition involves a two-tier approach consisting of a Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) and the Source Selection Authority (SSA). The responsibilities of the source selection organization and members are outlined below. The following organizational chart identifies the structure of the source selection organization:

2.1 Source Selection Authority (SSA). The SSA will make the final source selection decision based on the results of the proposal evaluations. The SSA for this acquisition is Keith L. Rhodia. The SSA is responsible for the acquisition and ensures that the source selection is conducted properly and efficiently and conforms to DOL and Federal acquisition policies and requirements. The SSA will also:

Review and approve the Source Selection Plan (SSP)

Review and approve the evaluation criteria

Review and approve the ranking of the evaluation criteria

Appoint the chairperson and members of the SSEB, and ensure that members are properly trained (See Appendix A for SSEB member listing)

Ensure conflicts of interest or appearances thereof do not exist

Provide the SSEB with guidance and special instructions for conducting the evaluation and selection process

Ensure that there is no premature or unauthorized disclosure of proprietary or source selection information

Make the final award decision

2.2 Contracting Officer (CO). The Contracting Officer (CO) oversees the regulatory process, ensures compliance with the FAR and FAR Supplement (DOLAR), and other relevant regulations and acts as staff advisor to the SSA and SSEB. A major responsibility is to ensure that the evaluation criteria set forth in the RFP are properly addressed in the SSP. The Contracting Officer for this acquisition is Keith L. Rhodia. Other specific CO duties are to:

· Ensures the evaluation board properly evaluates the proposals against the stated evaluation criteria, and monitors compliance with source selection “rules”

Decide whether to conduct discussions as defined in FAR Part 15.201 and how to conduct them

Review evaluation reports

Conduct debriefings of the offerors, both successful and unsuccessful

· Award the contract

2.3 Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB). The primary responsibility of the SSEB is to ensure a comprehensive evaluation of each submission in response to the RFP in accordance with the SSP and the evaluation factors contained in the solicitation. The SSEB should be composed of personnel familiar with the operational requirements and environment of the project. The SSEB will be led by a chairperson and will consist of a single team that will conduct technical evaluations. The Contracting Officer will evaluate Past Performance and Price/Cost. Non-voting members serving as technical advisors or consultants on specific topics may support the SSEB. The SSEB Chairperson will head the SSEB and will report to the SSA. The SSEB shall:

· Maintain a full commitment to the evaluation process until the evaluation is complete, a decision is reached by the SSA, and the contract is awarded

· Evaluate each proposal in an impartial and equitable manner, and report its findings to the SSEB Chairperson

· Evaluate proposals based on the information provided

· Evaluate each proposal against the established evaluation criteria only and ensure that proposals are not compared against one another

· Identify and fully document proposal strengths, weaknesses, and clarifications as well as provide an overall assessment of each proposal

· Participate in and/or assist in discussions and debriefings as required by the Contracting Officer

2.3.1 SSEB Chairperson Responsibilities. The SSEB Chairperson appointed to lead the proposal evaluation effort will function as a working but non-voting member of the board. The SSEB Chairperson appointed to lead the proposal evaluation effort is Anja Decressin. The SSEB Chairperson will:

· Manage the overall activities of the SSEB, distributing the workload, and ensuring compliance with source selection information security procedures

· Ensure all SSEB members are duly appointed and confirmed by memorandum and that all necessary procurement integrity certifications, statements of non-disclosure, and rules of conduct are executed by SSEB members

· Ensure all SSEB members are fully trained prior to start of evaluation, including any replacement SSEB members

· Ensure all SSEB members understand the evaluation objectives, procedures, schedules, and individual team member responsibilities

· Request the SSA to assign Advisors At-Large, if requested by the SSEB Team Leaders, to review specific portions of the proposals

· Provide the KO with a consolidated evaluation report prior to discussions, if held

· Serve as the focal point for coordination and consultation with the SSA

· Review SSEB reports to ensure adequacy and overall quality of the narrative justification for the evaluation results

· Coordinate technical participation for discussions (if held) with offerors and debriefings, as directed by the KO, and other activities as required

· Provide KO with all evaluation documentation for the contract file

· Brief the SSA on the findings of the SSEB

· Ensure source selection determination rationale is fully documented before source selection announcement

· Ensure publication of "lessons learned" report describing the experience and results of the source selection process

2.3.2 SSEB Team Leader Responsibilities. The SSEB Team Leader will be responsible for the oversight and direction of the evaluation teams. The Technical Team is lead by Shane Amerman and the Contract/Cost Team is lead by Keith L .Rhodia The Team Leaders will:

· Review the team evaluators’ evaluation write-ups for completeness, consistency, and compliance with the evaluation factors and criteria (See Appendix C)

· Serve as a focal point for coordination and consultation with the SSEB Chairperson

· Assign advisors to specific sections of the proposal for review

· If needed, request the use of Advisors At-Large through the SSEB Chairperson

· Conduct team caucuses

· Prepare team reports for the SSEB Chairperson and the SSA

· Participate in briefings to the SSA

· Participate in de-briefing the offerors

2.3.3 SSEB Evaluator Responsibilities. The SSEB Evaluators are voting members of the SSEB, and will be responsible for determining how well proposals satisfy the Technical/ Management Approach and Past Performance, criteria of the RFP. This will be accomplished by evaluating all written and oral proposals and rating each of them against the appropriate evaluation factors specified in the SSP (See Appendix C).

2.3.6 Observer Roles and Responsibilities. The Observers will have limited participation in the source selection. The role of the “observer” will be to permit an appropriate level of knowledge and insight by selected representatives of Government organizations who have legitimate interests in the source selection process. Observers will have the opportunity at key points in the evaluation process to be present and become thoroughly familiar with the activities of the SSEB. Observers are not permitted to become actively involved in any evaluation process and are permitted only to monitor the activities of the source selection. This involvement will require completion of appropriate non-disclosure forms.

2.4 Duration and Location of the Evaluation. The SSEB evaluation of submitted proposals is expected to require approximately 30 days. The evaluation committee members will remain available and committed until all evaluation and source selection actions have been completed. All evaluation committee members will be required to be present at the evaluation location during normal duty hours. Work after normal duty hours, weekends and holidays may be necessary. The proposal evaluations will be performed at The Francis Perkins Building. All facilities used for source selection shall be configured so that the evaluation can be performed in a controlled area.

3.0 PROPOSAL EVALUATION PROCESS

The purpose of the evaluation process is to provide critical input to the source selection determination by providing a rational basis for selection of the successful offeror. Evaluators will not compare one proposal against another, but rather evaluate each proposal against the factors stated in the SSP (See Appendix C) and the criteria established for the proposal evaluation (See Appendix C). The evaluation process provides the necessary analysis of the proposals, which will allow the SSA to decide which proposal best satisfies the needs of the Government.

3.1 Preparation and Training. Several functions must be performed prior to initiation of the actual evaluation process.

The SSP evaluation strategy and criteria must be approved by the SSA.

Personnel participating in the SSEB must be identified and notified.

Participants in the source selection must sign non-disclosure and other related statements that become part of the official supporting documentation (See Appendix B).

Participants in the source selection will read the RFP to become thoroughly familiar with project requirements. Any questions concerning the RFP requirements, evaluation process, or criteria should be directed to the KO for resolution.

Evaluation panel members must acquire a thorough knowledge and understanding of the evaluation factors and criteria and how they are applied.

Personnel participating in the source selection will be required to attend an introductory briefing to familiarize them with:

The TSP Fiduciary Audit acquisition strategy

How the evaluation will be conducted

· Application of evaluation criteria

· Rating proposals and documenting the results

· Protection of source selection information

· Necessary administrative details

3.2 Proposal Evaluation. SSEB Evaluators will assess and rate proposals based on how well the offerors meet the factors and requirements outlined in the RFP using the evaluation criteria and instructions in the SSP (See Appendix C). Evaluators will assess each proposal, and past performance information (See Appendices D and E), then prepare a narrative description of the strengths, weaknesses, and areas requiring clarification to support the proposal’s rating. Telephone interviews for past performance on Critical Subcontractors, utilizing the points of contact identified by the returned Past Performance Questionnaires, may be conducted prior to receipt of proposals.

3.3 Definitions.

· A significant strength is defined as an aspect of the proposal that appreciably increases the likelihood of successful contract performance.

· A strength is defined as an aspect of the proposal that increases the likelihood of successful contract performance.

· A weakness is defined as a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

· A significant weakness is a flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

· A deficiency is defined as an aspect of the proposal that fails to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

· A clarification is defined as limited exchanges between the Government and offerors, for the purpose of enhancing the Government’s understanding of proposals, without entering into discussions, or requesting a revision to the proposal.

· Discussions are defined as exchanges between the Government and offerors for the purpose of identifying to the offeror’s significant weaknesses, deficiencies, and other aspects of its proposal that could, in the opinion of the contracting officer, be altered or explained to enhance materially the proposal's potential for award.

3.4 Discussions. The Government reserves the right to make an award without any formal discussions.

3.5 Limits on Exchanges. Government personnel involved in the acquisition shall not engage in conduct that:

· Favors one offeror over another

· Reveals an offeror’s technical solution, including unique technology, innovative and unique uses of commercial items, or any information that could compromise an offeror’s intellectual property to another offeror

· Reveals the names of the individuals providing reference information about an offeror’s past performance

· Knowingly furnishes source selection information in violation of FAR Part 3.104 and 41 U.S.C. 423(h)(1)(2)

3.6 Source Selection Documentation. It is extremely important that the source selection process is adequately documented, both to substantiate and provide an audit trail for the source selection decision and support that decision against possible protests by unsuccessful offerors. The appropriate documents, including the SSA’s decision document, as required by FAR 15.308, briefings to the SSA, and other reports as necessary to capture all consensus findings of the SSEB, will be retained as part of the contract file.

4.0

EVALUATION RATINGS

4.1 Evaluation Factors and Methodology. All proposals shall be evaluated by the SSEB in accordance with the factors and criteria established in the SSP (See Appendix C). The evaluation criteria provides for past performance and technical/ management approach evaluations based upon criteria established before receipt of the proposals and is intended to ensure that the evaluation will be a structured process employing equitable measures.

5.0

SECURITY OF SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION

5.1 Restriction of Source Selection Participants. Because participation in a source selection involves access to procurement sensitive information it is essential that it be safeguarded in a manner similar to "classified" material. Participants in a source selection must accept and be willing to certify their acceptance of certain restrictions when nominated to serve on the SSEB. Participants shall not disclose proprietary or source selection information in accordance with FAR 3.104-5 and DFARS 203.104-5. Participants must avoid actual or perceived conflicts of interests. Participants will be required to understand and sign a Conflict of Interest and Non-Disclosure Statement.

5.2 Document Control. Proposals, the SSP, and other material related to the source selection will be closely controlled by the SSEB. All work performed as part of this source selection will be conducted at the source selection facility, and source selection materials will not be removed from the evaluation work location, except with the specific, expressed permission of the Contracting Officer. Following contract award, proposals will be disposed of in accordance with established procedures.

APPENDIX A

Source Selection Organization Member Listing

Source Selection Organization Member Listing

1. Source Selection Authority: Keith L. Rhodia

2. SSEB Members

A. Chairman:

Anja Decressin

B. Technical Team Evaluators

C. Contract/ Cost/Past Performance Team Evaluators

· Keith L. Rhodia, Contracting Officer, and Sheila Thompson, Contract Specialist

3. Council – David Koepel

4. Changes or additions to the composition of the Source Selection Organization may only be made with the approval of the Source Selection Authority.

APPENDIX B

Source Selection Certificates

MEMORANDUM FOR SOURCE SELECTION EVALUATION BOARD

SUBJECT: Unauthorized Disclosure of Procurement Information for Solicitation

RFP#: DOL131RP21715

The proper custody, use and preservation of official information related to procurement evaluation, selection proceedings, negotiations, etc. cannot be overemphasized. It is essential that personnel associated with procurement actions strictly comply with the applicable provisions of the law, including, but not limited to, 18 U.S.C. § 1905, which provides:

“Whoever, being an officer or employee of the United States or of any department or agency thereof, any person acting on behalf of the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, or agent of the Department of Justice as defined in the Antitrust Civil Process Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 1311-1314), publishes, divulges, discloses, or makes known in any manner or to any extent not authorized by law any information coming to him in the course of his employment or official duties or by reason of any examination or investigation made by, or return, report or record made to or filed with, such department or agency or officer or employee thereof, which information concerns or relates to the trade secrets, processes, operations, style of work, or apparatus, or to the identity, confidential statistical data, amount or source of any income, profits, losses, or expenditures of any person, firm, partnership, corporation, or association; or permits any income return or copy thereof or any book containing any abstract or particulars thereof to be seen or examined by any person except as provided by law; shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and shall be removed from the office or employment.”

Activity representatives shall not reveal any information to anyone who is not also participating in the same proceedings. Such information is classified For Official Use Only.

The dissemination of information in this category to other parties will be at the sole discretion and sole direction of the Contracting Officer. Vendors’ proposals, identity of officers, source selection evaluation board documents, and similar materials will be handled and discussed on a need-to-know basis only. Under no circumstances may proposals, evaluations, and selected property/services, or source selection evaluation board reports, be divulged without the authorization of the Contracting Officer.

Any unauthorized disclosures contrary to the foregoing provisions may result in appropriate disciplinary action such as the penalties set forth above (18 U.S.C. § 1905), or such statutory and regulatory provision as may be deemed appropriate. To ensure awareness of the above, sign and date one copy of this memorandum.

Source Selection Authority

SSEB Member

Signature: _____________________

Date: ___________________________

Conflict of Interest

Certification

I hereby certify that I have read and become familiar with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 3.104-4, entitled “Statutory and related prohibitions, restrictions, and requirements.” I understand and will completely observe the provisions of this regulation.

Statement Of Conflict Of Interest

To the best of my knowledge, neither I, nor any member of my family, has any direct financial or employment interest in any of the firms submitting proposals for consideration and evaluation, which conflicts substantially, or appears to conflict substantially, with my duties as a member of the Source Selection Evaluation Board.

In the event that I later become aware of such conflict of interest, I agree to disqualify myself and report this fact to the Chairperson of the Board, and to abide by the instruction that he may give me in this matter.

Signature: ________________________

Name: ___________________________

Title: ____________________________

Date: ____________________________

Non-Disclosure Statement

For

Consulting Professionals

I, ____________________________, understand that during the course of providing professional consulting services to the Federal government I will routinely come into contact with documents of a sensitive nature including, but not limited to, negotiation strategies, documents related to contractual disputes, proprietary data of third party, leases, internal memoranda and correspondence and a wide variety of other documents and information that must be safeguarded from disclosure.

I agree that, as a condition of performing consulting services to the Federal government, I will not disclose, or cause to be disclosed, any sensitive documents without the prior consent of an authorized representative of the Federal government. I further agree that such sensitive documents/ information will be safeguarded in accordance with the best commercial practices of my firm ___________________. I agree that I have an affirmative duty to determine whether a document/ information is sensitive and not subject to public release before releasing it. I understand and agree that a failure to adequately safeguard such sensitive documents may result in termination of my contract(s) and a variety of civil and/or criminal charges.

I further understand that the duty to safeguard the documents/ information cited above is a continuing personal obligation that is not terminated or otherwise modified by change of jobs or employer.

The duties described herein are in addition to, and independent of, any Procurement Integrity Certifications I may subsequently enter into.

Signature

APPENDIX C

EVALUATION FACTORS and METHODOLOGY

Evaluation Factors Submission Requirements and Evaluation Minimum Requirements

EVALUATION CRITERIA

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

EVALUATION CRITERIA

Basis for Award. The Government will award a single or multiple award Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity Labor Hour contract from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation is most advantageous to the Government based on the best overall proposal that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the three evaluation factors: {Technical, Past Performance, Price}. Factor I, Technical is significantly more important than Factor II, Past Performance. All sub-factors under Factor I, Technical are of equal importance.

The Contracting Officer shall also conduct a price analysis in accordance with the techniques in FAR 15.404-1(b) (2). The non-Price factors combined are significantly more than Factor III, Price. However, price will become significantly more important as non-price factors approach equality. Offerors are cautioned that the award may not necessarily be made to the lowest price offered. The Government is more concerned with obtaining superior technical features than with making an award at the lowest overall price to the Government. However, the Government will not make an award at a significantly higher overall price to the Government to achieve slightly superior technical features. To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than “Acceptable” must be achieved for Factor I, and each of its associated sub-factors.

The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if later determined by the Contracting Officer to be necessary. The Government may reject any or all offers if such action is in the public interest; accept other than the lowest offer; and waive informalities and minor irregularities in offers received. Clarifications may be requested as described in FAR 15.306(a). Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (for example, the relevance of past performance information) or respond to adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond.

Pursuant to FAR 15.306(c) the Contracting Officer may establish a competitive range comprised of all of the most highly rated proposals, unless the range is further reduced for reasons of efficiency. Pursuant to FAR 52.215-1(f) (4), the Contracting Officer may further limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals. To determine which firm represents the best value, the offers will be evaluated as outlined below.

The evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

1. The Government source selection team will review the entire package for compliance with all instructions, page limitations and completeness.

2. The Government source selection team will conduct a technical evaluation and assign a rating.

3. The Government source selection team will evaluate price to determine completeness, reasonableness, balance and affordability.

4. The Government source selection team will evaluate past performance and assign a performance confidence assessment rating.

5. The Government will conduct a technical, price trade-off analysis of the highest technically rated offers and select the awardee (s). The non-Price factors combined are significantly more important than Factor III, Price. Each may be traded off, one against the other, to make a best value award decision. As a result, award may be made to other than the lowest priced offeror.

VOLUME I: TECHNICAL

The Quote should provide a detailed description of the technical requirement to the IDIQ; Demonstrate a thorough understanding of DOL’s technical needs; Provide sound strategies to accomplish the goals of the IDIQ;

Include a discussion of the likely problems and identify possible solutions; and Be written to demonstrate the contractor’s ability to present complex technical material in an accessible yet accurate manner.

The proposed approach shall demonstrate the contractor’s ability to perform the work required at the highest level of quality and rigor, including relevant past experience. The quote should provide information on the experience that the vendor has had in the performance of work that is the same as, or similar to, that described in the technical approach.

Volume I should have three sections/subfactors:

Section 1: Understanding of the Scope/

Section 2: Prior Experience

Section : Staffing Plan

SUBFACTOR 1

Understanding the Scope/Overview – The contractor shall presents its capabilities and experience. They should specifically highlight their knowledge of ERISA and EBSA and any skills they have that may be relevant to EBSA’s research interests. For each of the areas of expertise of specialization described below, the Contractor should indicate whether it has anyone who fulfills this role and reference their resume(s). The resumes should be provided in Section 3 in alphabetical order. The Overview should make clear which staff work for the Contractor and which are available through a subcontract. It is possible for one staff member to cover multiple items among the areas of expertise listed below:

1. Experience analyzing the role of employer provided health and retirement benefits in the labor market, in the health insurance market, or in the market for financial products and services.

2. Health economics, including experience with health data sets such as the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS), the Current Population Survey’s March supplement, the Health and Retirement Study, or health claims data.

3. Labor economics or program evaluation.

4. Public finance.

5. Financial economics, particularly with respect to issues affecting health plans and insurance markets.

6. Experience with policy analysis requiring in-depth knowledge of ERISA and EBSA.

7. Sampling theory, estimation of variance from complex survey designs, and implementation of random sample.

8. Survey methodology. Preferably this would include experience with surveys done for federal agencies that required going through the OMB’s approval process, with preparation of supporting statement parts A and B.

9. Experience with data collection activities using focus groups, administrative data, and surveys.

10. Experience with SAS data sets and programming language. Preferably this would include experience with Oracle-SQL.

11. Experience with STATA data sets and programming language.

Subfactor 2 – Prior Experience The Offeror shall provide this information in the form of synopses of all of the contracts that it (and its companies, if any), and its subcontractors (if any), have had during the past three years (preceding the date of this RFP) which performed work that is the same as or similar to the work being proposed. The projects may include contracts with Federal, State and local government, as well as with private industry.

Each synopsis shall include:

(i) Name and address of the client;

(ii) Description of the work performed;

(iii) Period during which the work was performed; and

(iv) Dollar value of the project.

Potential Research Questions

EBSA seeks research from contractors with experience in the following:

1. Analyzing the nation’s policy challenges in the areas of retirement security and health care finances. Analyzing the role of employer provided health and retirement benefits in labor market and (respectively) in health care markets and in markets for financial products and services.

2. Analyzing data related to private sector employee benefit plans, both welfare plans and retirement plans. Experience in summarizing and analyzing existing household data sets and creating statistics and reports.

3. ERISA laws and regulations and analysis of policy issues relating to ERISA covered benefit plans.

4. Summarizing and analyzing Form 5500 data collected by the Department of Labor as well as Form 5500 Research Files. Analysis of the data available on Schedules A, C, D, H, I, SB, and MB of the Form 5500.

5. ERISA laws and regulations relating to Form 5500 reporting.

6. Statistical analysis, preparing statistical reports, and generating documentation.

7. SAS or Stata programming language.

8. Conducting data collection activities, including surveys, focus groups and administrative data. Experience in preparing documents required for the related Office of Management of Budget (OMB) Paperwork Reduction Act clearance process.

9. Organizing meetings, briefings or research conferences.

10. Development of a microsimulation model of the nation’s private health insurance system.

11. Financial economics and analysis of financial markets, as applicable to topics relating to health and welfare plans.

Subfactor 3 – STAFFING PLAN

Each technical proposal must include a staffing plan. The staffing plan shall describe who would work on the Sample Task Order and why their qualifications and experience make them suitable for the research task. This section will include the resumes. Successful performance of the proposed work depends heavily on the qualifications and experience of the individuals proposed for this project. Submissions shall provide sufficient information to judge the qualifications of the staff proposed to carry out the tasks for DOL. The vendor will designate which staff members will be Key Personnel for the project, as described below.

Contractor-Furnished Personnel, as well as a statement describing what their roles will be.

The Contractors shall provide a discussion of the individuals who the Contractor intends to utilize under this IDIQ. The discussion should identify each labor category for each individual, as well as a statement of tasks that that the individual may be employed to accomplish. The Contractor’s discussion should also include a description of the individual’s experience and qualifications, as well as an explanation of how the individual’s experience and qualifications relate to the tasks for which he or she may be utilized.

The staffing plan shall indicate the current employment status of personnel proposed for work i.e., whether these personnel are currently employed by the contractor or whether their participation is dependent upon planned recruitment or subcontracting. Where subcontractors or outside assistance are proposed, organizational control and specific responsibilities with respect to all tasks shall be clearly delineated so as to demonstrate and ensure responsiveness to the needs of the Government. The staffing plan shall include a chart listing all professional personnel, including subcontractors, with their names, project roles, qualifications, and experience, and the relevance of their education, skills, and previous similar work experience with respect to their proposed responsibilities.

This subfactor should include a resume for each individual proposed and is not included in the page limit. At a minimum, each resume shall include:

· The individual’s current employment status and previous work experience – including position title, dates in positions, duties performed, and employing organization. Duties shall be clearly defined in terms of the role performed, e.g., management, team leader, lead investigator, chief analyst.

· A statement describing the relevant work that the individual has completed or is currently undertaking.

· The individual’s educational background.

Letters of intent must be provided for all not-currently-employed personnel, i.e. contractors or contingency hires (defined as persons not currently employed but who have executed a binding letter for commitment for employment with the contractor, if the contractor receives award under this solicitation). Letters of intent must be dated and include signatures from the individual and the contractor/contractor.

IDIQ labor category and minimum standards for the IDIQ. Please note the minimum qualifications for each position. Proposed staff must meet these qualifications for each of the proposed labor categories identified for this IDIQ.

KEY PERSONNEL-The personnel specified below, or in attachment to this contract, are considered to be essential to the work being performed herein. Prior to diverting, removing, or replacing any of the specified individuals to other programs, the Contractor shall notify the Contracting Officer and the Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative (COTR) in writing, no less than,14 business days in advance (or as soon as the contractor is informed that an employee is leaving if given less than 14 business days notice) and shall submit justification (including the names and qualifications of the proposed substitute(s)) in sufficient detail to permit evaluation of the impact on the services rendered under this contract. The proposed substitute(s) shall possess qualifications equal to or superior to those of the key personnel being replaced. No substitutions shall be made by the Contractor without the written consent of the Contracting Officer. The list below, or attachment to this contract, may be amended from time to time during the course of the contract to either add or delete personnel, as appropriate.

Project Director (Key Personnel)

The Project Director must be an expert in managing research projects, with a minimum of ten years of relevant post-graduate experience and a Ph.D. in a relevant field, or an equivalent combination of education and relevant experience.

Task Leader (Key Personnel) The Task Leader must be an expert in managing research projects, with a minimum of five years of relevant post-graduate experience and a Ph.D. in a relevant field, or an equivalent combination of education and relevant experience.

Senior Economist (Key Personnel) The Senior Economist must have a minimum of five years of post-graduate experience and a Ph.D. in a relevant field, or an equivalent combination of education and relevant experience. Their specialty must be in a field of economics relevant to the project at hand; for example, labor, health, or financial economics.

Senior Analyst (Key Personnel)

The Senior Analyst must have a minimum of five years of related experience; for example, actuarial, legal, or financial expertise. They must have a Master’s degree or an equivalent combination of education and relevant experience.

Statistician (Key Personnel)

The Statistician must have a graduate degree in statistics and at least five years of post-graduate experience in this field, including sampling theory, estimation of variance from complex survey designs, and implementation of random sample.

Other (Non-Key) Personnel Categories

Research Associate

The Research Associate must have a Master’s degree in a relevant field or the equivalent combination of education and relevant experience.

Research Assistant

The Research Assistant must have a Bachelor’s degree in a relevant field or the equivalent combination of education and relevant experience.

Programmer

The Programmer must have at least a Bachelor’s degree and must have advanced skills in programming in SAS, STATA, or another programming language, as is suitable for the project at hand.

VOLUME II: PAST PERFORMANCE

The purpose of the Past Performance is to provide a summary of recent and relevant efforts essentially comparable to this acquisition. The Government will use this information to perform a past performance evaluation as described in Section M. Current contracts or subcontracts performed, in whole or part, within the past three (3) years immediately preceding the issuance of this solicitation will be considered RECENT. RELEVANCY is described in detail in Section M.

Provide a comprehensive list of up to five recent and relevant contracts to include the information listed below. If you believe a classified project is significant for this proposal, then simply state "Classified" where appropriate and provide points of contract.

1. Contract Number

2. Total dollar value (original and Final)

3. Contracting Agency

4. Title of Contract

5. (Government) program manager (name, address, phone number)

6. Description of program/project

7. Contracting Officer (name, address, and phone number)

8. Period of performance

9. Type of Contract (Firm Fixed Price, Fixed Price Incentive, Cost Plus Fixed Fee, Cost Plus

Award Fee, etc.)

The Government requests the offeror send out a Performance Evaluation Questionnaire (PEQ) (see Attachment A) for each contract listed above. Offerors shall request that the customer complete the questionnaire and return it to the Contracting Officer AT LEAST 10 DAYS prior to the proposal closing date/time, earlier if possible, but NO LATER THAN the proposal closing date. Once the PEQs are completed by the POCs, the information contained therein shall be considered sensitive and shall not be released to you, the offeror.

The Past Performance Volume shall include a list of questionnaire recipients to include two current POCs and phone numbers for each contract reference provided. The offeror is solely responsible for the accuracy of the contact information provided.

The completed PEQs shall be emailed directly to Sheila Thompson, at Thompson.sheila@dol.gov. For all the information required above, the same information should be provided for any major subcontractor proposed. Any major subcontractor’s Performance Evaluation Questionnaire will be in addition to the 5 surveys provided for the prime offeror. A major subcontractor is defined as those performing more than ten percent (10%) of the effort, on a total cost basis. Note: Past performance regarding predecessor companies, or key personnel (i.e. Onsite Program Manager) who have relevant experience, that will perform major critical aspects of the requirements WILL NOT be considered as highly as past performance information on the principle offeror.

Past performance information pertaining to a subcontractor cannot be disclosed to the prime offeror without the subcontractor’s consent. Attachment C is a sample consent letter to be provided with the proposal from all subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement, consenting to the release of their past performance information to the prime contractor.

VOLUME III: PRICE

The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total of all CLIN prices, including all options to ensure that pricing is not unbalanced. Price will be evaluated for completeness and reasonableness using the techniques in FAR 15.404-1(b) (2). Price will become significantly more important as technical ratings approach equality. No adjectival ratings will be used to evaluate Price.

(i) The following information and data must be included in the Offeror’s Business Proposal:

(1) Administrative Data

(a) The name, address and telephone number of the Offeror’s (and subcontractor’s, if applicable) cognizant Government audit agency, if the Offeror (and subcontractor, if applicable) has a cognizant Government audit agency.

(b) A copy of the Offeror’s (and subcontractor’s, if applicable) most recently negotiated indirect cost rate agreement with the Government.

(c) A statement that the Offeror has the necessary financial capacity, working capital and other resources to perform the contract without assistance from any outside source (if not, indicate the amount required and the anticipated source).

(d) The Offeror’s most recent balance sheet and income statement.

(e) A copy of each fully executed contingent subcontract, consulting agreement and/or joint venture arrangement, if the Offeror proposes to use subcontractors, consultants and/or joint ventures.

(f) The anticipated address of the office specified in Section C.3 of The Schedule.

(2) Cost and Pricing Data

(a) Offerors must propose a loaded hourly rate for each category of labor shown in Section B.2 of The Schedule. Offerors must propose rates for the initial contract period and for each of the five years. Each hourly rate must be proposed to be in effect for an entire contract period. The Offeror does not have to propose the same loaded hourly rates for all contract periods. The Offeror shall support said labor rates with detailed breakdowns, to include the direct and indirect cost of labor, and profit. The proposed hourly rates must include all costs for which the Offeror expects to be reimbursed, except those travel costs that will be reimbursed separately in accordance with Section B.4 of The Schedule. The proposed hourly rates must also include all of the profit that the Offeror expects to be paid.

(b) The Government will reimburse the Contractor separately for the direct and indirect cost of travel in accordance with Section B.4 of The Schedule. The Offeror must propose, for each contract period, the single indirect rate that would be applicable to the direct cost of the travel, in the event that the offeror was awarded a contract. The Offeror does not have to propose the same rate for each contract period. The Government will also use these rates to calculate the total evaluated price of the Offeror’s proposal (See Section M.2). The indirect cost rates proposed by the offeror and used by the Government for evaluation and payment purposes shall be the rates of the offeror only and not those of any subcontractor.

(c) The Offeror is requested to calculate the Total Evaluated Price of its proposal in accordance with Section M.2 of this solicitation to include its calculation sin its Business Proposal.

(iii) The Quote shall also be provided, for each of the Sample Task Orders:

a) A total payment amount for the Sample Task Order, and

b) Payment amounts for each of the deliverables listed in Schedule of Deliverables for the Sample Task Orders below.

Adjectival Ratings. Proposals will be adjectivally rated against each of the evaluation factors set forth in this plan and in the solicitation. Adjectival ratings for Factors I, Technical (See Table 1), Adjectival ratings for Factor II(See Table 2), Past Performance will be Low Risk, High Risk, and Unknown Risk. No adjectival ratings will be used to evaluate Factor III, Price.

RATINGS

The following adjectival ratings will be used:

Factor I- Technical, will be rated using the following Adjectives: Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, and Unacceptable.

Factor II- Past Performance, will be rated using the following Adjectives: Low, Moderate, High, and Unknown (i.e., neutral) Risk. In addition, instances of past performance will be assessed as Relevant, Somewhat Relevant, or Not Relevant.

Factor III – Price, will be evaluated as to amount, but not adjectivally.

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), unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

APPENDIX D

Mail-in Past Performance Questionnaire

Source Selection

Authority

SSEB

Chairperson

Counsel

Contracting

Officer

Technical

Evaluation Team

Advisors

HCA

Cost/PP

Evaluation Team

�Who will the evaluator’s be?