Instructions_to_Offerors_amended_Final.docx

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

1.0 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

1.1 The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), Office of Administration, intends to award a single award to one (1) Vendor. In response to the solicitation, Request for Proposal (RFP), this is an open market request for HUBZone Vendor(s) interested in submitting a response. The requirements for the services are indicated under the draft Performance Work Statement (PWS) attached to this RFP. Each Vendor will provide technical capabilities; a past performance and a price proposal as described below.

1.2 This solicitation will be released electronically only. The electronic version of the RFP is to be released via Fedbizopps as the official version for this acquisition. No hard copy of this solicitation will be issued. Offerors will be sent any and all applicable revisions to this solicitation electronically via Fedbizopps so you are encouraged to check it often. Offerors must submit their proposals in accordance with paragraph 4.1 of these instructions. We will not accept any CD hard copies or removable media devices.

2.0 VENDOR QUESTIONS

2.1 The deadline for Offerors to submit questions is 5:00 pm EDT on May 22, 2015. No exceptions. Offerors are requested to e-mail questions to: Lasondia Chaney at chaney.lasondia@bls.gov and Kristin Dell at dell.kristin@bls.gov. Telephonic inquiries will not be accepted. All inquiries must be submitted in the form of a question. Responses to all questions will be sent electronically to all offerors via Fedbizopps.

3.0 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION DEADLINE

3.1 The due date and time for the response is 12:00 pm EDT on June 10, 2015. The offeror shall submit all response information in electronic format via e-mail to Kristin Dell at dell.kristin@bls.gov and Lasondia Chaney at chaney.lasondia@bls.gov as an attachment and labeled. Responses not submitted by the due date and time are considered “late” and will not be considered for award.

4.0 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

4.1 The government will not reimburse the contractor for expenses related to proposal creation or submission of proposals.

5.0 CONTENT

Each proposal shall contain the following information:

5.1 Cover letter. The following introductory information (letter or number format is acceptable) is required on the first page of your offer:

· Solicitation Number;

· Name and address of Vendor;

· Name and telephone number of your point-of-contact;

· Name of your contract administration office (if available);

· Date of submission;

· Name, title and signature of authorized representative;

· DUNS Number and Cage code;

· Taxpayer Identification Number

5.2 Proposal Format and Content

5.2.1 Proposals should be typed on size 8.5 by 11 inches paper. Pages shall be single-spaced, with at least one-inch margins on the top, bottom and sides.

5.2.2 Except for the reproduced sections of the solicitation document, the text size shall be no less than 12 point. Pages shall be numbered sequentially by section.

5.2.3 Tables, charts, graphs, diagrams, and figures shall be used wherever practical to depict organizations, systems and layout, implementation schedules, plans, etc. These displays shall be uncomplicated, legible and shall not exceed 8.5 by 11 inches in size. Elaborate brochures or documentation, detailed artwork, or other embellishments are not required and neither are they desired.

5.2.4 The Vendor shall prepare the response as set forth in the Volume Table below. The titles and contents of the sections shall be as defined in the table, all of which shall be within the required page limits and with the number of copies specified. Pages exceeding this page limitation set forth will not be read nor evaluated, and will be removed from the proposal.

5.2.5 To assure timely and equitable evaluation of proposals, Vendors must follow the instructions contained herein. Vendors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or sub-factors. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award. Vendors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale.

5.2.6 The response shall consist of three (3) separate parts and should be attached in an email under Vendor Attachments: Volume I – Technical Capability Proposal, Volume II – Managerial Approach Proposal, and Volume III – Price Proposal.

6.0 VOLUME TABLE

May be either in PDF or MS Word format

May be either in PDF or MS Word format

One (1) electronic copy May be either in PDF or MS Word Format

EVALUATION FACTORS and METHODOLOGY

1. EVALUATION FACTORS

1.1 The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible Offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The Government may reject any or all proposals if such action is in the public interest; accept an offer other than the lowest priced proposal; and waive informalities and minor irregularities in proposals received. The Government reserves the right to make award without discussions. Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. If the Government awards without discussions, the offerors may be given the opportunity to clarify certain aspects of proposals or to resolve minor clerical errors. The vendor evaluation will be conducted in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Sub-Part 19.1305, 13,5 and 12.6, utilizing streamlined acquisition procedures. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

1.2 All factors and subfactors are listed in The factors are listed in descending order of importance, so Factor I is more important that Factor II and Factor II is more important that Factor III. The subfactors for the technical capability are of the same importance. When combined, non-price factors are significantly more important than price.

· Factor I – Technical Capability

· Subfactor 1 – Technical Approach

· Subfactor 2 – Key Personnel

· Factor II – Past Performance

· Factor III – Price

1.3 FACTOR I – TECHNICAL CAPABILITY

1.3.1 Proposals will be evaluated to ensure the requirements outlined in the draft Performance Work Statement (PWS) can be met. The Offeror must demonstrate an understanding of the BLS requirements outlined in the PWS. Note that if an Offeror’s proposal demonstrates a material failure to meet a Government requirement resulting in a deficient rating, their proposal will be deemed unacceptable and not awardable.

1.3.2 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s technical approach based upon the following subfactors:

Subfactor 1 – Technical Approach: The Offeror shall describe their understanding of the PWS requirements. The Offeror’s proposal shall be in sufficient detail as to describe the means and methods for accomplishing the PWS tasks. As part of the project plan the offeror shall describe their approach to conducting a procurement quality assurance review and display their understanding of the requirement to include a description of how the contractor will meet the acceptable quality levels (AQLs) outlined in the PWS. The quality control plan should address how the vendor intends to monitor, assess and address the quality and timeliness of contractor performance.

As part of the technical approach, the contractor shall discuss experience with similar Federal or private sector post-award contract reviews and offer suggested reporting and presentation frameworks.

The personnel identified by the offeror are not necessarily being proposed to work on the contract resulting from this solicitation, but are intended to demonstrate to the Government the representative caliber and expertise that the offeror believes appropriate to be assigned to this contract. The personnel identified must be current employees of the offeror.

At a minimum, provide the following information:

· Employee Name

· Length of Employment with the offeror‘s company

· Number of years of Federal Government-related Acquisition or Technical professional work experience with names of corresponding Agencies supported

· Relevant Acquisition or Technical Professional Accomplishments/Experiences

· Professional Certifications:

· FAC-C Certification Level (legacy or refresh)

· DAWIA Contracting Certification Level

· CFCM Certification

· Key experiences/competencies

· Other ( please clarify)

· Higher Level Education or Degrees

The Government will evaluate the proposal to satisfy the requirements as outlined in the PWS. The contractor’s demonstrated capabilities to provide required services including, but not limited to, appropriateness and availability of proposed personnel. The government will evaluate the approach to providing required services, including, but not limited to, appropriateness of project plan and quality control plan. The government will evaluate the professional experiences, formal education, professional certifications such as DAWIA, FAC-C, of the personnel proposed by the offerors for the Senior Acquisition staff member and proposed staff. BLS will consider CFCM certification with a combination of education and experience in lieu of FAC-C and DAWIA certifications, however, preference will be given to those proposals with FAC-C Level III Certification in Contracting as well as higher level education degrees for all lead personnel.

Subfactor 2 – Key Personnel: The Offeror’s proposal provides the resume (required) and allocable contracting certification listed in the PWS of the Senior Acquisition staff member position. The resume will display the required background skills/education/abilities as necessary to fulfill the qualifications listed in section 2.6 of the PWS. Resumes submitted for key personnel must represent the actual person or persons proposed for the position. The Key Personnel clause that will be utilized for this RFP is shown below:

(a) The Contractor shall notify the CO prior to making any changes in personnel assigned to the key position. The key position is defined as:

· Senior Acquisition staff member

If the senior acquisition staff member assigned cannot also serve as a point of contact for program management related activities, questions, and concerns, the contractor should provide a management point of contact to fulfill these duties should they arise.

(b) It is understood that changes in key personnel and other contractor staff during the life of the contract (including the first 90 days) may be necessitated due to exigencies agreed to by the Government COR and the contractor in coordination with the Contracting Officer. The Contractor shall provide a detailed explanation of the circumstances necessitating any proposed substitutions, complete resumes for the proposed new staff, and any additional information requested by the Government COR and the Contracting Officer. The Contractor shall, prior to making any substitution permanent, demonstrate to the satisfaction of the COR that the qualifications of the proposed substitute personnel are equal to or better than the qualifications of the personnel originally identified for or in that position. The Contracting Officer will notify the Contractor within 15 calendar days after receipt of all required information of the decision on proposed substitutions.”

1.3.3 In performing the technical capability evaluation, each subfactor will be assigned a separate rating, and then an overall rating will be given from the ratings below:

TECHNICAL EVALUATION RATINGS

1.4 FACTOR II – PAST PERFORMANCE

1.4.1 The past performance evaluation will be accomplished though assignment of a confidence assessment rating based on a combination of the relevancy, reliability, and quality of performance of the examples provided. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the Technical Capability Subfactors, the resulting Performance Confidence Assessment represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s demonstrated capability and past experience in acquisitions and procurements in complex acquisition environments that involved performance and analysis described in the PWS, particularly such work conducted for federal agencies.

1.4.2 Under the Past Performance factor, the Performance Confidence Assessment represents the evaluation of an Offeror’s present and past work record to assess the Government’s confidence in the Offeror’s probability of successfully performing as proposed. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s demonstrated record of contract compliance in supplying services that meet the user’s needs, including but not limited to, controlling costs, adhering to schedules (including the administrative aspects of performance), and performance (reasonable and cooperative behavior and commitment to customer satisfaction, and generally, the contractor’s business-like concern for the interest of the customer). As a result of this analysis, each Offeror will receive an integrated Performance Confidence Assessment rating, which is the rating for the Past Performance factor. In performing the past performance evaluation, each Offeror will be assigned one of the following ratings described below:

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT RATINGS

HIGH

CONFIDENCE

Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government has high confidence the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

SIGNIFICANT

CONFIDENCE

Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government has significant confidence the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

SATISFACTORY

CONFIDENCE

Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government has confidence the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Normal contractor emphasis should preclude any problems.

UNKNOWN

CONFIDENCE

No performance record is identifiable.

LITTLE

CONFIDENCE

Based on the Offeror’s performance record, substantial doubt exists that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

NO

CONFIDENCE

Based on the Offeror’s performance record, extreme doubt exists that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

1.4.3 This factor will be evaluated on the basis of information obtained concerning the Offeror’s performance on contracts, consistent in scope and complexity with this solicitation, that were performed during the last five (5) years.

1.4.4 Past performance information will be obtained through questionnaires tailored to the circumstance of this acquisition. The Offeror will complete a Past Performance Information Sheet (see Attachment 1) send out a Past Performance Questionnaire (see Attachment 3) for each reference. Past Performance Questionnaire’s completed by sub-contractors will be accompanied by the consent form (see Attachment 2.)Their selected references must return it to the CO by email as instructed on the questionnaire.

1.4.5 Offerors are to note that, in conducting this assessment, the Government reserves the right to use both data provided by the Offeror and data obtained from other sources, including, but not limited to: Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting Systems (CPARS), or similar systems of other Government departments and agencies; Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA); interviews with program managers and COs, and other sources known to the Government, including commercial sources. This information may include data on efforts performed by other divisions, critical subcontractors, or teaming contractors, if such resources will be brought to bear or significantly influence the performance of the proposed effort. The Government may consider as relevant efforts performed for agencies of the federal, state, or local governments and commercial customers. If an Offeror is unable to provide a Past Performance Questionnaire, though not preferable, a relevant and recent CPARS report may be used in lieu of the questionnaire. However, it must be submitted in PDF format in accordance with the instructions for submittal in Attachment 3. A CPARS submission will be treated the same as a questionnaire for rating purposes.

1.4.6 Offerors shall provide three (3) references that are most relevant to the requirements of this solicitation.

1.4.7 The Government will evaluate the offeror’s demonstrated capability and past experience in acquisitions and procurements in complex acquisition environments that involved performance and analysis described in the PWS, particularly such work conducted for federal agencies. The Department of Defense, Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting may be used as part of the evaluation.

1.4.8 The evaluation will be based on relevant performance that demonstrates: Quality of service demonstrated by compliance with contract requirements, accuracy of reports and overall technical excellence. Timeliness performance demonstrated by meeting milestones, reliability, and responsiveness to direction. Business relations as demonstrated by effective management, effective use of small/small disadvantaged business in subcontracting plan, reasonable/cooperative behavior, flexible, effective contractor recommended solutions and business like concerns for the Government‘s interest.

1.4.9 The Government will perform an independent determination of relevancy of the Offeror’s past performance (which includes, if applicable, the extent of its critical subcontractors’ or teaming partners’ involvement) based on the data provided or obtained. The Government may not necessarily agree with the Offeror’s opinion of relevancy. Each previous/current contract provided in the proposal will receive one of the relevancy ratings listed below:

PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY ASSESSMENT

VERY

RELEVANT

Past/present performance effort involved essentially the same scope, qualifications, number of personnel, range of labor categories and complexity the solicitation requires

NOT

RELEVANT

Past/present performance effort did not involve any of the scope, qualifications, number of personnel, range of labor categories and complexity the solicitation requires

1.4.10 More relevant performance will have greater impact in the performance confidence assessment than less relevant efforts.

1.4.11 In determining relevancy, consideration will be given, but not limited to, as experience conducting contract reviews, experience with Federal contracting, and experience conducting Federal government contract reviews. Experience conducting Federal contracting reviews would be considered the most relevant to this requirement. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than an "Unknown Confidence" rating. Likewise, a more relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance.

1.4.12 If an Offeror has no single project that encompasses all types of the required experience, the Offeror may show relevant experience through personnel who are proposed to work on the contract that have had the required experience with another company.

1.4.13 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 and, as a result, will receive an "Unknown Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor. For Offerors with no relevant performance record, the Government may consider relevant performance information regarding key personnel.

1.4.14 Adverse past performance is considered any rating below Satisfactory on any questionnaire, survey or Government evaluation. Offerors with adverse past performance may be afforded an opportunity to address alleged deficiencies if the Offeror has not already been provided an opportunity to comment on the deficiencies in accordance with FAR 15.306(a)(2) and FAR 15.306(b)(4). Where relevant performance record indicates performance problems, the Government will consider the number and severity of the problems and the appropriateness and effectiveness of any implemented 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.

1.4.15 Quality of performance assesses how well the Offeror performed. This will be assessed based on the ratings received in the Past Performance Questionnaires.

1.5 FACTOR III – PRICE

1.5.1 The approach to the source selection for this procurement will be pursuant to a best value concept. The objective is to select the proposal that offers the best value for the Government, not necessarily the lowest price. However, as the performance confidence assessments of the Offerors become more equal in past performance ratings, price may become a determining factor in award selection.

1.5.2 Although Price is least in importance, it will contribute to the source selection decision. While Price will not be rated, as are Factors I and II, it will be evaluated as follows:

(a) Total Evaluated Price: Price reasonableness will be conducted for all Offerors. However, reasonableness will be based on the total evaluated price (base plus four option). The Government will review the Pricing submissions for completeness and accuracy. The Government will review the Offeror’s total price (a base plus four option periods) for the 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).

(b) For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay when consideration is given to prices in the market. Normally, price reasonableness is established through adequate price competition, but may also be determined through price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404. Reasonableness will be based on the total evaluated price.

1.5.3. Offerors shall provide pricing that is firm fixed price. Pricing proposals shall conform to the table below for each option year. Offeror shall submit detailed price information in a separate spreadsheet that outlines how price was established, i.e. What labor hour categories, rates, ODC’s, etc. If proposed Labor Hour categories are covered under the Service Contract Labor Standards statute (formerly known as the Service Contract Act) the offeror’s proposed rates must comply with the prevailing wage determination table.

Base Year

Option Year 1

Option Year 2

Option Year 3

Option Year 4

1.5.4 After an evaluation of Factors 1 and 2 has been completed and rankings have been established, the price to the Government will be compared against these rankings to determine the combination most advantageous to the Government. Because the Option to Extend Services will be included in this requirement, the Government will add six month’s value to the final option year in conducting the price evaluation. The price evaluation may consider, but is not limited to, the following, or a combination of the following:

Comparison to other offerors Comparison to the Independent Government Cost Estimate Comparison to other historical data

ATTACHMENT 1

PAST PERFORMANCE INFORMATION SHEET (PPIS)

PAST PERFORMANCE INFORMATION SHEET (PPIS)

Provide the information requested in this form for each Past Performance Reference as required by 1.4.4. Provide frank, concise comments regarding performance on the reference you identify. Provide a separate completed form for each reference submitted. Submit the forms as part of the Past Performance Volume.

A. Offeror Name (Company/Division):

*Please identify if you are a teaming member or subcontractor with the prime

Cage Code:

DUNS Number:

(NOTE: If the company or division performing this effort is different than the offeror or the relevance of this effort to the instant acquisition is impacted by any company/corporate organizational change, note those changes below. Refer to the "Organizational Structure Change History" you provided as part of your Past Performance Volume).

B. Program Title:

C. Contract Specifics:

1. Contracting Agency or Customer:

2. Citation Number:

3. Contract Type:

4. Period of Performance:

5. Original Contract $ Value (Do not include unexercised options):

6. Current Contract $ Value (Do not include unexercised options):

7. If the amounts for 5 and 6 above are different, provide a brief description of the reason below.

8. Original completion date:

9. Current scheduled completion date:

10. Estimated completion date:

11. Number of contract changes:

12. Enter primary cause for contract changes below:

D. Enter below a brief description of effort as Prime or Subcontractor.

E. Primary customer points of contact. (For Government contracts/orders, provide current information on all three individuals. For commercial contracts, provide points of contact fulfilling these same roles.)

Name

Office

Address

Telephone

FAX #

E-Mail

F. Address below any technical (or other) area about this citation considered unique.

G. Describe the relevancy to the Technical Capability, Factor 1, Subfactor 1 for which this citation applies. Illustrate how your experience on this program applies to that subfactor.

H. Subcontracting Plan Requirements.

1. Was a subcontracting plan required? _______ If YES, go to # 2. If NO, skip this section.

2. Planned goal (%)

Achieved goal (%)

3. Explain below why goals were not met.

ATTACHMENT 2

CONSENT FORM

CONSENT FORM

FOR THE RELEASE OF PAST PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

TO THE PRIME CONTRACTOR

Past performance information concerning teaming partners cannot be disclosed to a private party without the teaming partner's consent. Because a prime contractor is a private party, the Government will need that consent before disclosing subcontractor past performance information to the prime during exchanges. In an effort to assist the Government's Performance Confidence Assessment Group (PCAG) in assessing your past performance relevancy and confidence, we request that the following consent form be completed by the major teaming partners identified in your proposal. The completed consent forms should be submitted as part of your Past Performance Volume.

SAMPLE

Dear (Contracting Officer)

We are currently participating as a (teaming partners) with (prime contractor or name of entity providing proposal) in responding to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, (location) request for Proposal (solicitation number) for the (program title or description of effort).

We understand that the Government is placing increased emphasis on past performance in order to obtain best value in source selections. In order to facilitate the performance confidence assessment process we are signing this consent form to allow you to discuss our past performance information with the prime contractor during the source selection process.

(Signature and Title of individual who has the authority to sign for and legally bind the company)

Company Name:

Address:

ATTACHMENT 3

(Attachment 3) PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

WHEN FILLED IN, THIS DOCUMENT IS SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE INFORMATION

IAW FAR 2.101 AND 3.104

Mail-in Past Performance Questionnaire

TO: Government agency or commercial organization (i.e., customer) with knowledge of the Offeror's past performance.

Please complete this questionnaire, which concerns the past performance of a contractor or subcontractor who is doing business (or has done business) with you, and is interested in doing business with the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL). Handwritten responses are sufficient. If you need more space than that provided, please attach additional pages. Responses will be treated as source selection sensitive information. The contractor who provided DOL with your name as a reference was informed, via a solicitation provision, that by listing you as a reference and requesting your submission of the questionnaire, they are authorizing you to release information to DOL relative to their past performance, whether it is positive or negative information.

Email the completed questionnaire to the attention of the responsible Contracting Officer. The Offeror must fill in the solicitation number, fax number, email address, and name of Contracting Officer below, prior to providing you with the questionnaire, or provide you with the information to fill in. Your completed questionnaire must be provided directly to the Contracting Officer from you. DOL will not accept completed questionnaires sent from the Offeror.

Offeror: Complete SECTION 1, then e-mail questionnaire to the customer points of contact listed on the Past Performance Information Sheet for the contract identified.

Offeror’s Evaluator: Complete SECTIONS 2-3 and e-mail to: dell.kristin@bls.gov and chaney.lasondia@bls.gov.

(DO NOT PROVIDE COPY BACK TO THE OFFEROR)

SECTION 1: CONTRACTOR IDENTIFICATION

A. Contractor

B. Prime Contractor Cage Code

C. Contract Number

D. Contract Type

No

F. Period of Performance

G. Initial Contract Cost ($)

H. Current/Final Contract Cost ($)

I. Reasons for differences between initial contract cost and final contract costs (enter below):

SECTION 2: CUSTOMER OR AGENCY IDENTIFICATION

A. Customer or Agency Name

B. Customer or Agency Description (if applicable)

C. Geographic description of services under this contract, i.e., local, nationwide, worldwide, other Command

SECTION 3: EVALUATOR IDENTIFICATION

A. Evaluator's Name

B. Evaluator's Title

C. Evaluator's Phone/Fax Number

D. Number of years evaluator worked on subject contract

SECTION 4: NARRATIVE SUMMARY

What were the contractor’s greatest strengths in the performance of the contract?

What were the contractor’s greatest weaknesses in the performance of the contract?

Did the contractor have a difficult time finding qualified personnel who have working experience in federal (or private industry) contract quality assurance review?

Would you have any reservations about soliciting this contractor in the future or having them perform one of your critical and demanding programs?

Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104