Enclosure 3.pdf

ENCLOSURE 3 RFQ # 80GSFC23AA004

EVALUATION CRITERIA

The Government will award a single BPA resulting from this Request for Quotation to the responsible Offeror whose quotation conforming to this request will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The following factors shall be used to evaluate quotes: Technical, Price, and Past Performance.

The Price factor is less important than the combined importance of the Technical and Past Performance factors. As individual factors, the Price factor is less important than the Technical factor but more important than the Past Performance factor. Offerors are advised that a quotation meeting the objectives and requirements with the lowest price may not be selected if award to a higher-priced Offeror is determined to be most advantageous to the Government.

The attention of offerors is particularly directed to NFS 1815.305-70, “Identification of unacceptable proposals”, which could result in a proposal being eliminated from the competition. Additionally, Offerors are cautioned that exceptions or new terms, conditions, or clauses may result in a determination of proposal unacceptability.

Offerors quotations will be evaluated as follows:

(a) TECHNICAL FACTOR

The Government will evaluate quotations by classifying findings as strengths, weaknesses, significant strengths, significant weaknesses, or deficiencies using the following:

Weakness –a flaw in the quotation that increases the risk of unsuccessful BPA performance

Significant Weakness –a quotation flaw that appreciable increases the risk of unsuccessful BPA performance

Deficiency –a material failure of a quotation to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a quotation that increases the risk of unsuccessful BPA performance to an unacceptable level

Strength –a quotation area that enhances the potential for successful performance or contributes toward exceeding the BPA requirements in a manner that provides additional value to the Government.

Significant Strength –a quotation area that greatly enhances the potential for successful performance or contributes significantly toward exceeding the BPA requirements in a manner that provides additional value to the Government.

The Offeror’s overall technical factor will be evaluated using the adjectival ratings below to determine how well the Offeror understands the technical requirements as expressed in the Offeror’s Technical Volume response and approach to performing the specific requirements listed in the SOW and Representative Task Order. One of the following adjectival ratings will be assigned:

ADJECTIVAL

RATING DEFINITIONS

Excellent A comprehensive and thorough quotation of exceptional merit with one or more significant strengths. No deficiency or significant weakness exists.

Very Good A quotation having no deficiency and which demonstrates over-all competence. One or more significant strengths have been found, and strengths outbalance any weaknesses that exist.

Good

A quotation having no deficiency and which shows a reasonably sound response. There may be strengths or weaknesses, or both. As a whole, weaknesses not off-set by strengths do not significantly detract from the Offeror’s response.

Fair A quotation having no deficiency and which has one or more weaknesses. Weaknesses outbalance any strengths.

Poor A quotation that has one or more deficiencies or significant weaknesses that demonstrate a lack of overall competence or would require a major quotation revision to correct.

The Offerors quotations will be evaluated as follows:

The Government will evaluate for effectiveness and efficiency the Offeror’s proposed technical approach to meeting the following critical requirements of the Statement of Work (Enclosure 1, Attachment A): The Offeror shall provide a description of the process for reading the data from the tapes. Specifically, address any processes for delivery with anomalous issues, such as, problems of old media, including, but not limited to, sticky tapes and dry-rotted plastic hubs, including capability to bake the tapes to remove excess moisture.

The Government will evaluate for completeness for processing the transcribed data format, specifically addressing the conversion of 7-track tape formats into 8-bit byte data formats.

The Government will evaluate for completeness for processing the transcribed data format, specifically addressing the conversion of 9-bit track tape formats into 8-bit byte data formats.

The Government will evaluate the thoroughness of the process of reading the reel media at reduced speeds to reduce stress and friction.

The Government will evaluate the thoroughness of the process of handling media tracking issues, such as those resulting from degraded signal strength or alignment issues.

The Government will evaluate the understanding of the process for providing a description of the .csv (comma separated value) inventory file of the individual file marks recovered from each tape to clearly identify the beginning and end of individual files on the media, number of records per file, number of bytes per record, and end of tape marker.

The Government will evaluate for understanding of the process for providing a description of the final disposal of the tapes which at a minimum, shall include removal of all labels and rendering the media unreadable.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s overall comprehensive technical understanding of these critical requirements and clarity in identifying the inherent problems associated with the objectives of this procurement.

In evaluation of the RTO¸ the Government will consider the following:

For the RTO, the Government will evaluate: (a) the thoroughness and merit of the Offeror’s proposed technical and management approach to successfully accomplish the task, track progress, and demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of the scope and objectives associated with the requirements; (b) the reasonableness and completeness of the proposed detailed schedule; (c) the thoroughness of the Offeror’s identified risk factors; (d) the effectiveness of the Offeror’s proposed approach to managing and mitigating identified risks;

(e) the appropriateness of the Offeror’s staffing plan, skill mix, and hours proposed to accomplish the RTO in an effective and efficient manner; and (f) the reasonableness of the basis for any assumptions made.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s procedures for determining the applicability of subcontracting and approach for managing subcontracts and potential performance problems for effectiveness and efficiency.

The Government will evaluate the organizational efficiency of the Offeror’s proposed process for responding to task plan requests in a timely, comprehensive, and thorough manner. The Government will also evaluate the Offeror’s overall plan for pricing, staffing, tracking and managing tasks orders for effectiveness and completeness.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed approach and capability to effectively and efficiently resolve problems, organize workflow, and manage the overall effort successfully. The Offeror’s ability to provide and retain a technically adept workforce will be evaluated for effectiveness. The Government will also evaluate the type of personnel currently available for adequacy and appropriate skill mix and levels of expertise. In addition, the Government will also evaluate the reasonableness and effectiveness of the Offeror’s approach to obtain additional personnel, if needed.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed risk management techniques for comprehensiveness in identifying potential risks and effectiveness in developing mitigation strategies to eliminate or reduce risks and ensure task order requirements are met. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s overall ability to continually manage risk, fully assess and understand the level of risks associated with this BPA, and efficiently develop and implement workarounds and mitigation approaches.

(b) PRICE FACTOR

A price analysis will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(1). Price analysis is described at FAR 15.404-1(b). This analysis is done to ensure that a “fair and reasonable” price is paid by the Government. However, the analysis is not intended to be protective of the Offeror.

Each proposed Representative Task Order response pricing will be assessed to determine the reasonableness of the proposed response, including the total price per unit, qspecial handling due to degradation, volume discount, and total price. The media type, price per unit and volume discount proposed in Attachment B, PRICING MATRIX, will also be assessed for reasonableness.

The total of the proposed price for all Representative Task Orders, will be presented to the Selecting Official. All price analysis will be performed at the Representative Task Order level; there is no separate price analysis of the BPA. This factor is used to determine the reasonableness of the proposed prices to the Government, should the Offeror be selected for the award.

(c) PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR

GSFC 52.215-330 Past Performance Evaluation Factor (Services). (MAY 2018)

An offeror’s past performance will be evaluated on the evaluation criteria in this provision.

All past performance references must meet the “recent” and minimum average annual cost/fee expenditures criteria provided below for both prime contractor references and significant subcontractor references in order to be evaluated.

For purposes of past performance, the term “Offeror” refers to a prime contractor and its significant subcontractors. Accordingly, the past performance of significant(s) subcontractors shall also be evaluated and attributed to the Offeror. The past performance of a significant subcontractor will be compared to the work proposed to be performed by that subcontractor, and weighted accordingly in assigning the overall past performance adjectival rating to the Offeror. The past performance of the prime contractor will be weighted more heavily than any significant subcontractor or combination of significant subcontractors in the overall past performance evaluation.

A “recent” contract is a contract that is ongoing or completed less than [*Insert same number as Section L (refer to*2* in section L template)*] years prior to the issuance of this RFP.

Contracts completed more than [*Insert same number as Section L (refer to *2* in Section L template(*] years prior to issuance of this RFP will not be considered recent and will not be considered or evaluated.

A “relevant” contract depends on the size and content of the contract with respect to this acquisition.

For a prime contractor’s contract reference(s) to be considered at least minimally “relevant”, it must meet/exceed an average annual cost/fee incurred of at least $[*Insert same number as Section L (refer to *1* in Section L template)*].

A proposed significant subcontractor for this procurement is defined as any proposed subcontractor that is estimated to meet/exceed an average annual cost/fee of $[*Insert same number as Section L (refer to *3* in Section L template)*]. Note, the definition of significant subcontractor for the past performance evaluation may be different than for the cost evaluation.

For a significant subcontractor’s contract reference(s) to be considered at least minimally “relevant”, it must meet/exceed an average annual cost/fee incurred of at least [*Insert same percentage number as Section L (refer to *4* in section L template)*]% of that portion of this procurement that the subcontractor is proposed (or estimated) to perform.

[Contracting Officer Instruction for highlighted sentence below: *5* For Most GSFC Procurements (particularly large/complex procurements), content will be weighted more heavily than size in evaluating past performance relevance. However, this sentence may be deleted if the Contracting Officer (after consulting with the customer organization) determines that size and content should be approximately equal.] If the contract is deemed recent and meets the above minimum average annual cost/fee expenditures criteria, the Government will then determine the degree of relevance - i.e., level of pertinence - of the contract based on size and content. [*5* Content is more important than size in the evaluation of relevance.] The term “content” means the type and complexity of services, work, or supplies, in comparison to the requirements of this solicitation. The Government may consider past quantities and periods of performance in evaluating overall relevance.

The performance evaluation will be based primarily on customer satisfaction and/or contract data in meeting technical, schedule, cost, and management requirements. Additional performance factors may include contract administration, occupational health, safety, security, subcontracting plan goals and small disadvantaged business participation targets, if applicable, and other contract requirements.

The Government may review and consider past performance information on other contracts that it is aware of or that are made available from other sources and inquiries with previous customers. These contracts (if any) must meet the above “recent” and minimum average annual cost/fee expenditures criteria to be evaluated.

As part of the past performance evaluation, the Government may attribute the experience or past performance of a parent or affiliated or predecessor company (including Joint Venture prime partner companies and/or a parent or affiliated company that is being otherwise proposed as a subcontractor on this effort) to the proposed prime contractor and/or significant subcontractor(s) where the proposal demonstrates that the resources of the parent or affiliate or predecessor company will affect the performance of the proposed prime contractor and/or significant subcontractor(s). The Government will take into consideration whether the resources of the parent or affiliate or predecessor company (its workforce, management, facilities or other resources) will be provided or relied upon for contract performance such that the parent or affiliate will have meaningful involvement in contract performance. These contracts (if any) must meet the above “recent” and minimum average annual cost/fee expenditures criteria to be evaluated.

An Offeror shall not be rated favorably or unfavorably if the offeror does not have a record of “recent” and “relevant” past performance or if a record of past performance is unavailable.

In such cases the offeror will receive a “Neutral” rating. However, an offeror with favorable, recent, and relevant past performance that meets the minimum average annual cost/fee expenditures indicated above may be considered more favorably than an offeror with no relevant past performance information.

The Government will consider an Offeror’s explanation of any problems encountered on any identified contracts, and any corrective actions taken by the offeror.

The overall confidence rating assigned to an Offeror’s Past Performance (see below) will reflect a subjective evaluation of the information contained in the oral presentation, if applicable; written narrative; past performance evaluation input provided through customer questionnaires; and other references, if any, that the Government may contact for additional past performance information.

Past Performance Ratings – The level of confidence ratings set forth below will be used to evaluate the Past Performance factor for each Offeror.

Each of the adjective ratings below has a "performance" component and a "relevance" component as discussed above. As used in the ratings below, the term “pertinent” is equivalent to the term “relevant.” The following adjectival rating guidelines will be used when subjectively assessing both components.

Very High Level of Confidence The Offeror’s relevant past performance is of exceptional merit and is very highly pertinent to this acquisition; indicating exemplary performance in a timely, efficient, and economical manner; very minor (if any) problems with no adverse effect on overall performance. Based on the Offeror’s performance record, there is a very high level of confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

High Level of Confidence The Offeror’s relevant past performance is highly pertinent to this acquisition; demonstrating very effective performance that would be fully responsive to contract requirements with contract requirements accomplished in a timely, efficient, and economical manner for the most part with only minor problems with little identifiable effect on overall performance.

Based on the Offeror’s performance record, there is a high level of confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Moderate Level of Confidence The Offeror’s relevant past performance is pertinent to this acquisition, and it demonstrates effective performance; fully responsive to contract requirements; reportable problems, but with little identifiable effect on overall performance. Based on the Offeror’s performance record, there is a moderate level of confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Low Level of Confidence The Offeror’s relevant past performance is at least somewhat pertinent to this acquisition, and it meets or slightly exceeds minimum acceptable standards; adequate results; reportable problems with identifiable, but not substantial, effects on overall performance. Based on the Offeror’s performance record, there is a low level of confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Changes to the Offeror’s existing processes may be necessary in order to achieve contract requirements.

Very Low Level of Confidence The Offeror’s relevant past performance does not meet minimum acceptable standards in one or more areas; remedial action required in one or more areas; problems in one or more areas which adversely affect overall performance. Based on the Offeror’s performance record, there is a very low level of confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance [see FAR 15.305(a) (2) (ii) and (iv)].

(End of provision)

(d) 52.217-5 Evaluation of Options. (JUL 1990)

Except when it is determined in accordance with FAR 17.206(b) not to be in the Government’s best interests, the Government will evaluate the rates associated with each option period. Evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

(End of provision)

ENCLOSURE 10 RFQ # ??????

REPRESENTATIVE TASK ORDERS (RTOs)

CS - Insert the RTOs which must contain the following information:

Type of Order: IF this BPA allows for the issuance of either Firm Fixed Price or Time and Materials, you should include at least one RTO of each type in the RFQ

Period of Performance: Insert dates that do not cross option years.

Place(s) of Performance: IF this BPA allows for both onsite and offsite performance, you should include at least one RTO for each location to get competitive pricing on both set of rates.

Detailed RTO Scope of Work: CO should review the Scope of Work for clarity and correct wording (see previous Attachment A – Statement of Work guidance).

RTO Deliverables: Insert with due dates

Government Property: If applicable, list all Installation-Accountable Government Property (for use onsite Government facility) and/or all Government Furnished Property (for use offsite at Contractor’s facility).

Assumptions: Example, note any plug number costs (like travel or materials)

ENCLOSURE 5 RFQ # ??????

RTO PRICING EXHIBITS

1. Select the applicable GSA BPA Pricing Exhibits (all FFP RTOs, All T&M RTOs or both

FFP and T&M RTOs) from the 210 Policy Website, Checklist for Contract Award, Tab 50, under the Exhibits for RFP/RFQ folder. Revise the exhibits to reflect the correct number of RTOs included in your RFQ and delete the Phase-In Exhibit, if not applicable.

2. After editing the applicable Cost or Price exhibits for your procurement, complete the “Electronic Document Posting Checklist” in accordance with the “Presentation on Handling Electronic Procurement Files,” which are available on the 210 Policy Website, Checklist for Contract Award, at the very top under Releasing Procurement Documents to Contractors/Non-Civil Servants.

3. Convert the Pricing Exhibits to Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF).

ENCLOSURE 6 RFQ # ??????

ADOBE ACROBAT DC CONVERSION INSTRUCTIONS

The Pricing Exhibits provided in the RFQ are in Portable Document Format (PDF). Prior to completing the Pricing Exhibits, you must convert the .PDF file to Microsoft Office Excel either using Adobe Acrobat DC or manually recreate each individual exhibit. To convert the exhibits using Adobe Acrobat DC use the following steps:

1) Open the Pricing Exhibits .PDF file in Adobe Acrobat DC.

2) Click on the Export PDF tool in the right pane.

3) Choose spreadsheet as your export format, and then select Microsoft Excel Workbook.

a. Under the “Save As XLSX Settings” window, ensure that following selections are made:

i. Under Excel Workbook Settings ensure “Create Worksheet for each Page” is selected.

ii. Under Numeric Settings ensure “Detect decimal and thousands separators using regional settings.”

iii. Under Text Recognition Settings ensure “Recognize text if needed” is selected.

1. Ensure “English” is the selected language.

b. Click “OK”

4) Click Export.

Name the Excel file and save it in a desired location.

ENCLOSURE 7 80GSFC???????

GOVERNMENT QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN

FOR INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY

CS - Complete/edit and insert the latest QA Surveillance Plan – BPA template from the 210 Policy Website, Checklist for Contract Award, Tab 50, under the Enclosures for RFP/RFQ folder.

ENCLOSURE 8 80GSFC???????

INTENTION TO SUBMIT A QUOTATION

WE DO INTEND TO SUBMIT A QUOTATION:

PRIME CONTRACTOR

SUBCONTRACTOR

WE DO NOT INTEND TO SUBMIT A QUOTATION FOR THE FOLLOWING

REASONS:

NAME AND ADDRESS OF FIRM OR ORGANIZATION (Including Zip Code)

TYPED NAME AND TITLE: _______________________________________________

TELEPHONE NUMBER: _________________________________________________

DATE: _________________

E-MAIL THIS FORM OR THE INFORMATION CONTAINED WITHIN THIS

DOCUMENT TO: [Insert the CO/CS email address]

ENCLOSURE 9 80GSFC?????????

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

CS - Complete/edit and insert the latest Past Performance Questionnaire template from the 210 Policy Website, Checklist for Contract Award, Tab 50, under the Exhibits for RFP/RFQ Folder.

ENCLOSURE 10 RFQ # ??????

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SECURITY MANAGEMENT PLAN

TEMPLATE

PROVIDED FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES

CS – IF NFS 1852.204-76 is included in the BPA, insert the latest IT Security Management Plan template from the 210 Policy Website, Checklist for Contract Award, Tab 50, Enclosures for RFP/RFQ, under the Procurement Templates Folder.