Instructions_to_Offerors_Evaluation_of_Offers.pdf

Instructions to Offerors, Evaluation of Offers

1: Introduction

Offerors shall provide a rate quote for each item in the Technical Pricing Matrix, along with a narrative describing Technical Approach and evidence of relevant past performance, according to the descriptions within the attached Statement of Work.

1.1 Due Date

Offerors must respond to this solicitation not later than 12:00pm, Monday, January 23, 2016, as outlined in Amendment 000002. Any offers received after this deadline will not be considered.

1.2 Submission

Offers shall be submitted as set forth below. The Offer shall consist of four separate volumes.

Volume I – Technical o Submit five (5) hard copies of Volume I.

o Submit one (1) electronic copy via email to the solicitation POC o A successful submission of Volume I will include responses to all areas of concern noted below

Volume II – Past Performance o Submit five (5) hard copies of Volume II.

o Submit one (1) electronic copy via email to the solicitation POC o A successful submission of Volume II will include summaries or accounts of how the contractor performed on projects of similar dollar value, scope, and complexity of work in the SOW.

o Offerors are advised that the Government may use past performance information obtained from centralized past performance database and sources other than those identified by the offeror and the information obtained may be used for both the responsibility determination and the best value decision. The absence of past performance data will be rated neither favorably nor unfavorably. Contracts listed may include those entered into with Government agencies or private sector entities. The

Government may take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to the instant acquisition.

Volume III – Price o Submit one (1) copy of Volume III.

o A successful submission of Volume III will include both the completed Technical

Compliance Matrix (attached to solicitation amendment), and a narrative of Total Cost

Evaluation.

Volume IV – Certifications/Representations

1.3 Delivery of Offers

Offerors shall submit electronic copies of all required documents in 1.3 to the Contract Specialist at

Pickett.Brett.W@dol.gov. In addition to the electronic copies, offerors shall submit hard copies of their offers, using one of the following methods for delivering offers:

EXPRESS MAIL/COMMON CARRIERS: offers submitted by express mail services (FEDEX, UPS, DHL, etc.) shall be submitted to: U.S. Department of Labor OASAM/BOC Office of Procurement

Services, ATTN: Brett Pickett, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Room S-4307, Washington, DC 20210

NOTE: Delivery of express mail services at DOL is not reliable and usually arrives one to two days AFTER the scheduled deliver date. If the offeror intends to use express mail service, it is recommended to have delivery scheduled for one to two days BEFORE the RFP due date.

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE CHANNELS: offers submitted through US Postal Service shall be mailed to the following address:

OASAM/BOC/Office of Procurement Services

ATTN: Brett Pickett

200 Constitution Avenue, NW

Room S-4307

Washington, DC 20210

NOTE: Packages arriving through postal service are screened and are opened prior to receipt at OPS.

These actions and other uncertain delays are probable and outside the control of OPS. Any package received by OPS through postal channels after the due date will be returned to the offeror in the same condition in which it was received. The contents will not be evaluated and therefore, will not be eligible for award.

HANDCARRIED OFFERS:

To deliver a hand carried offer to DOL, enter the Francis Perkins Building (200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington DC, 20210) through the visitors’ entrance at the intersection of 3 rd and C streets, NW (near the fountain). Contact the Office of Procurement Services at (202) 693-4570 from the security station in the lobby, and a runner will be dispatched to collect your offer. The Contract Specialist can be reached at

(202) 693-7162, who can also collect your offer.

2 Non-Price Factors:

2.1 Factor I, Technical:

Offerors shall submit a narrative detailing their approach with respect to the following areas of concern:

1. Technical Compliance;

2. Staffing Approach;

3. Corporate Experience;

4. Corporate Policies and Procedures; and

5. Transition Requirements

Additional information regarding the Factor I evaluation can be found in the Evaluation Criteria section.

2.3 Factor II: Past Performance

The offeror shall describe three (3) relevant government or private section contracts and explain how the offeror planned, executed, and assured the quality of its product from start to finish.

The contracts described should be similar to the work processes described in the SOW. If the past performance submission substantially deviates from the processes described in the referenced SOW, the offeror must add a preface to the narrative to address overlap between and deviation from the SOW.

3 Price:

3.1 Factor III: Price

Offerors shall submit pricing of individual items using the attachment Technical Pricing Matrix, providing evidence of contract awarded prices such as copies of the GSA list and additional discounts from schedule pricing for this IDIQ as appropriate. The individual items shall be priced separately for each CLIN for which it is proposed.

EVALUATION CRITERIA

Basis for Award: The Government will award an Indefinite Delivery / Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract from this solicitation to the responsible Offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation is most advantageous (best value) to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the three evaluation factors: technical, past performance and price. Factor I, Technical, is significantly more important than Factor II, Past Performance.

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 important than Factor III, Price.

However, Price will become significantly more important as non-price factors approach equality.

Offerors are cautioned 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.

The Government reserves the right to award without discussions, but may 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. The Offeror’s initial offer should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint.

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 an overall adjectival rating for Factor I.

3. The Government source selection team will evaluate past performance and assign a performance confidence assessment adjectival rating for Factor II.

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

5. The Government will evaluate the proposals and may conduct a technical, price trade-off analysis of the highest technically rated offers to select the awardee. 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.

FACTOR I. TECHNICAL

The Government source selection team will review proposals for Technical content, with special attention given to the following concerns:

1: Technical Compliance:

The narrative shall include sufficient technical detail to demonstrate a clear understanding of the processes and tasks required in the Statement of Work (SOW).

2: Staffing Approach:

The Offeror shall provide a staffing matrix that identifies the personnel resources (labor categories and hours) the firm proposes to accomplish the SOW tasks. The Offeror shall include a general statement detailing the organization’s structure and also indicate where the proposed team fits within the organizational structure. This matrix will be evaluated to determine if it provides a realistic staffing approach providing stable staffing with types and numbers of positions proposed that are sufficient to ensure successful completion of the SOW tasks.

3: Corporate Experience:

The Offeror must demonstrate a minimum of three (3) years of experience providing support as identified in the SOW. If corporate experience is unavailable, an Offeror may substitute relevant experience regarding predecessor companies, proposed key personnel who have relevant experience, or subcontractors who will perform major critical aspects of the requirement. If this substitution is applied, the Offeror must clearly indicate how this experience relates or compares to the experience required.

The narrative must demonstrate relevant technical ability and experience directly related to the requirement. The narrative must also describe two of the largest dollar projects similar in nature and scope to the tasks presented in the SOW.

DOL will evaluate the proposal based on the degree to which the Offeror describes not less than three (3) years experience providing Information Technology Support Services, provides a clear understanding of how experience was accomplished, and supporting information to demonstrate the approach was the most advantageous for the customer.

4: Corporate Policies and Procedures:

The Offeror shall provide its company’s policies and procedures regarding its employment and operations policies to include telework and personal leave policies.

5: Transition Requirements:

In an effort to facilitate a smooth operational information exchange, upon contract award, the incoming contractor is required:

To develop, implement, maintain and share with the COR and ETA-OIST federal management a

Transition Plan, which shall include at a minimum:

A clear, reasonable and realistic approach for assuming full contractual responsibility without disruption or degradation of performance.

The identification of risks and appropriate mitigation strategies in the risk management plan

A work-breakdown structure detailing critical realistic, achievable and affordable start-up transition activities, schedules and a resource management plan.

Sufficient resources on hand and available to begin work on the effort.

The availability of trained and qualified personnel

To request and receive a complete list of:

Federal Points of Contact

Guidelines, Policies and Standard Operating Procedures

Knowledge bases

Keys and access cards

A listing of all ongoing activities with all related documentation, statuses, risks, and timelines

To protect the government assets (data, documentation, software, hardware, keys, passwords, etc.) against unauthorized use and duplication.

OIST at the DOL/ETA requires the incumbent Contractor to recognize the importance of both

“institutional knowledge” and continuity of operations during a contract transition out. To meet this expectation, OIST requires the Contractor to afford OIST the following rights (with corollary compliance mandated when such rights are expressed):

The right to request the incumbent Contractor’s staff be made available for retention by the succeeding contractor.

The right to request the incumbent Contractor’s staff be made available to the succeeding Vendor for “knowledge transfer” for up to thirty days prior to award

The Contractor is also required to provide the following:

Artifacts:

Guidelines, Policies and Standard Operating Procedures

Knowledge bases

Keys and access cards

A listing of all ongoing activities with all related documentation, statuses, risks, and timelines

Ensure the orderly surrender of government furnished equipment (building ID cards, laptops, mobile devices, etc.)

FACTOR II: PAST PERFORMANCE

The Government will evaluate past performance of three (3) current or previous contracts for relevancy

(within the last 3 years) with at least one (1) previous or current contract with relevancy within the past 12 months based on how well the Contractor performed on projects of similar dollar value, scope, and complexity. Offerors are advised that the Government may use past performance information obtained from centralized past performance databases and sources other than those identified by the Offeror and the information obtained may be used for both the responsibility determination and the best value decision. The absence of past performance data will be rated neither favorably nor unfavorably.

Contracts listed may include those entered into with Government agencies or private sectors. For

Contractors with no relevant corporate past performance, the Government may take into account information regarding the past performance of predecessor companies, key personnel with relevant past performance, or subcontractors that will perform key aspects of the requirement. The Government will evaluate the Past Performance Elements specified in the Past Performance Questionnaire.

FACTOR III: PRICE

The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total of all CLIN prices, including all options to ensure 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 non-price ratings approach equality. No adjectival ratings will be used to evaluate Price.

ADJECTIVAL RATINGS: Proposals will be adjectivally rated against each of the evaluation factors set forth in this plan and in the solicitation.

Factor I, Technical will be rated using the following scale:

ADJECTIVAL DEFINITION

Outstanding A proposal that satisfies all of the Government’s requirements with extensive detail to indicate feasibility of the approach and shows a thorough understanding of the problems and offers numerous significant strengths, which are not offset by weaknesses, with an overall low degree of risk in meeting the Government’s requirements.

Good A proposal that satisfies all of the Government’s requirements with adequate detail to indicate feasibility of the approach and shows an understanding of the problems and offers some significant strengths or numerous minor strengths, which are not offset by weaknesses, with an overall low to moderate degree of risk in meeting the Government’s requirements.

Acceptable A proposal that satisfies all of the Government’s requirements with minimal detail to indicate feasibility of the approach and shows a minimal understanding of the problems, with an overall moderate to high degree of risk in meeting the Government’s requirements.

Unacceptable A proposal that contains deficienc(ies) or significant weaknesses that amount to a deficienc(ies) that indicates a lack of understanding of the problems or an approach that cannot be expected to meet requirements or involves a very high risk; and none of these conditions can be corrected without a major rewrite or revision of the proposal.

Factor II, Past Performance will be rated using the following scale:

DURATION OF BUSINESS ARRANGEMENT: The period of performance of this contract will consist of a twelve (12) month base period, with four (4) twelve (12) month option periods.

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

A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful

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

ADJECTIVAL DESCRIPTION

Low Risk Little doubt exists, based on the Offeror’s performance record, that the

Offeror can perform the proposed effort.

Moderate Risk Some doubt exists, based on the Offeror’s performance record, that the

Offeror can perform the proposed effort.

High Risk Significant doubt exists, based on the Offeror’s performance record, that the Offeror can perform the proposed effort.

Unknown Risk Little or no relevant performance record identifiable; equates to an unknown risk rating having no favorable or unfavorable evaluation significance.