Atch_03_-_Instructions_and_Evaluation_Criteria.pdf

Attachment 3

Instructions and Evaluation Criteria

For 2018 Chaplains Conference

19 April 2018

Page 2 of 5 Instructions and Evaluation Criteria FA7014-18-R-1020

Evaluation Method: The requirement will be evaluated using the Lowest Priced, Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection method. LPTA is a simplified best value strategy that permits award to the lowest priced offeror who meets the minimum requirements as identified in the PWS. The Government will award a single task order to the contractor whose written response is technically acceptable and the lowest price.

Tradeoffs are not permitted and no evaluation credit is given to aspects of an offeror’s proposal that exceed acceptability standards. This acquisition will result in a firm fixed price task order, with cost reimbursable line items for travel..

Evaluation Process – The evaluation will proceed as follows:

1.0. FACTOR 1 - Price: This source selection is conducted with the expectation of adequate price competition. Comparison of proposed prices received in response to this solicitation is the intended price analysis technique. Other techniques and procedures, if deemed necessary and reasonable, may be used to ensure a fair and reasonable price. The Government will evaluate proposed prices to determine whether prices are consistent with the skill sets required for the work to be performed, the geographical locations where the work will be performed, reflect a clear understanding of the requirements, and are consistent with the various aspects of the offeror’s technical proposal. An offeror may be determined unawardable if its price is evaluated as unfair or unreasonable. The techniques and procedures described under FAR Subpart 15.404 will be the primary means of assessing price submission reasonableness as prescribed in FAR 16.505(b)(3).

1.1. The Government will evaluate price and rank the proposals by the total evaluated price and conduct technical evaluations. The Government will evaluate, starting in order from the lowest price to the highest price, until two (2) technically acceptable offerors are determined. The process to determine the total evaluated price will be as follows:

1.1.1. The total evaluated price will be calculated using Attachment 4, Cost/Price Spreadsheet.

1.1.2. Multiplying the unit price to verify the extended amounts of each CLIN for the base period and all options. An offer will be rated deficient if the offeror’s price sheet is incomplete and evaluation on that offer will stop.

1.1.3. Adding the extended amount of all base period CLINs and options to determine the total evaluated price.

1.1.4. Rank all responsive proposals by total evaluated price from low to high.

1.1.5 Conduct technical evaluations, starting in order from the lowest price to the highest, until two (2) technically acceptable offerors are determined.

1.1.6 Award will be made on the basis of the lowest evaluated price proposal meeting the minimum technical acceptable criteria in accordance with the PWS.

Page 3 of 5 Instructions and Evaluation Criteria FA7014-18-R-1020

Note: Offerors shall not alter the Not to Exceed Amount (NTE) on any CLIN. If an offeror alters the NTE amount, the price evaluator will replace it with the NTE amount listed on Attachment 4 of the RFP. Offerors shall enter their travel handling rate within the CLIN descriptions on Attachment 4. The travel handling rate is not part of the price evaluation, however, the lowest priced technically acceptable offer’s rate will be compared to the travel handling rate in its base contract to ensure it does not exceed that rate. If exceeded, that offer becomes non-responsive.

2.0. FACTOR 2 - Technical: The Technical Proposal shall be clear, concise, and shall include sufficient detail that substantiates stated claims. The proposal shall not simply rephrase or restate the Government’s requirements, but rather provide convincing rationale to address how the Offeror intends to meet requirements. Offerors shall assume that the Government has no prior knowledge of the Offeror’s capabilities. The Government will base its evaluation solely on information presented in the Offeror’s written Technical Proposal. Proposals will be evaluated for technical acceptability to determine an overall rating of “acceptable” or “unacceptable.”

Technical acceptability will be rated at the subfactor level, assigning each subfactor a rating of acceptable or unacceptable. Proposals must be acceptable in all sub factors to receive an overall acceptable rating. The Technical Proposal will be limited to twelve (12) pages. Cover page, table of contents, and qualification summaries provided in response to Subfactor 1 are not included in the page limitation. Qualification summaries should not exceed two (2) pages per person. Font size must be no smaller than Times New Roman size 10. Margins shall not be any smaller than 1 inch. The Government will evaluate and rate each technical subfactor as follows:

2.1. Subfactor 1: Staffing Plan. Offeror submits a detailed staffing plan that explains how the required labor categories will be successful in performing the tasks in the PWS, demonstrates a recruiting and retention process that clearly establishes how it will obtain and retain the necessary personnel resources and which clearly maps the labor categories to specific PWS tasks. Include a matrix to cross reference labor categories and hours with PWS Section 3 and all subsequent subsections.

Acceptable: Staffing plan demonstrates: (1) an adequate number and categories of personnel proposed to perform the services in the PWS; (2) the offeror’s plan to obtain personnel, minimize turnover and fill vacancies in accordance with the PWS; and (3) that the proposed labor categories are tied to specific PWS tasks.

Unacceptable: Staffing plan does not demonstrate: (1) an adequate number and/or categories of personnel to perform the services in the PWS; (2) the offeror’s plan to obtain personnel, minimize turnover and/or fill vacancies in accordance with the PWS; and/or (3) that the proposed labor categories are tied to specific PWS tasks.

2.2. Subfactor 2: Qualifications. The offeror will provide a summary of positions that demonstrates the ability to provide the personnel resources and skill sets available to fulfill the PWS requirements which includes, at a minimum, knowledge, expertise, skills and qualifications reflected in section 3 of the PWS.

Acceptable: Offeror’s proposal clearly identifies Air Force Personnel Services Transformation expertise (and when it occurred), Business Analyst and project support, Tier 0 BMC/Remedy, Oracle RightNow (RNT) application development and support (to include SQL Server

Page 4 of 5 Instructions and Evaluation Criteria FA7014-18-R-1020 knowledge and expertise), and shall describe how the proposed FTE meets the skills required to carry out the functions identified in section 3 and subsequent subsections of the PWS. The offeror must clearly demonstrate strategic analysts that have expertise with combining/consolidating work streams of geographically disbursed work centers. Offeror should demonstrate capable business process reengineering redesign commensurate with the requirements in PWS paragraph 3.2.2.1 thru 3.2.2.4. Additionally offeror shall clearly articulate how they are capable of addressing System Testing for the Air National Guard, PWS section

3.2.3 and subsections.

Unacceptable: Offeror’s proposal does not clearly quantify applicable expertise, and/or describe how the proposed labor categories and FTEs will meet the requirements identified in section 3 and subsequent subsections of the PWS.

2.3. Subfactor 3: Management Plan. The offeror shall describe in detail a sound plan for sustaining trained and qualified personnel, and demonstrate how the offeror shall meet all the requirements in the PWS. The proposal shall include a detailed plan to comply with the PWS.

The management plan shall describe the offeror’s recruiting and retention techniques. The offeror shall also submit a realistic schedule based upon information provided within the PWS of critical milestones, and potential roadblocks that could exist, in order to comply with the deliveries required in the PWS.

Acceptable: Management Plan demonstrates: (1) offeror’s plan to maintain continuity for the duration of the project; (2) plan to accommodate the required travel in support of tasks to fulfill PWS requirements; and (3) a schedule to illustrate work that needs to be performed in order to complete all deliverables within the PWS which shall include all major milestones and potential limiting factors.

Unacceptable: Management Plan does not demonstrate: (1) offeror’s plan to maintain continuity for the duration of the project; (2) plan to accommodate the required travel in support of tasks to fulfill PWS requirements; and (3) a schedule to illustrate work that needs to be performed in order to complete all deliverables within the PWS which shall include all major milestones and potential limiting factors..

2.4 Subfactor 4: Tier 0 Application Development. The offeror proposal demonstrates expertise with Tier 0 application development work activities and accomplishments. The offeror will also demonstrate how the work stream maps to the task for application development in section 3.2.1 of the PWS.

Acceptable: demonstrates Tier 0 Application Development: (1) applicable expertise and knowledge with Tier 0 application deliveries within the BMC/Remedy and Oracle RightNow (RNT) environments; (2) ability to support work activities within section 3.2.1 of the PWS.

Unacceptable: does not demonstrate: (1) applicable expertise and knowledge with Tier 0 application deliveries within the BMC/Remedy and Oracle RightNow (RNT) environments; (2) ability to support work activities within section 3.2.1 of the PWS.

Page 5 of 5 Instructions and Evaluation Criteria FA7014-18-R-1020

2.5 Subfactor 5: Information Services. The offeror’s proposal demonstrates expertise and knowledge of Information Services in activities and accomplishments that compliment section

3.3 of the PWS.

Acceptable: demonstrates: (1) expertise and knowledge to clearly quantify successfully accomplishing Information Service analysis and deliveries; (2) ability to support work activities within section 3.3 of the PWS.

Unacceptable: does not demonstrate: (1) expertise and knowledge to clearly quantify successfully accomplishing Information Service analysis and deliveries; (2) ability to support work activities within section 3.3 of the PWS.

2.6 Subfactor 6: Service Lifecycle Management. The offeror describes Service Lifecycle Management expertise and knowledge of work activities and accomplishments that complement section 3.3.7 of the PWS. The offeror shall demonstrate how the work stream maps to the tasks for Service Lifecycle Management in section 3.3.7 of the PWS.

Acceptable: demonstrates: (1) expertise and knowledge to successfully accomplished Service Lifecycle Management analysis and deliveries within a business analyst and project environment; (2) ability to support work activities within section 3.3.7 of the PWS.

Unacceptable: does not demonstrate: (1) expertise and knowledge to successfully accomplished Service Lifecycle Management analysis and deliveries within a business analyst and project environment; (2) ability to support work activities within section 3.3.7 of the PWS.

3.0 FACTOR 3 Past Performance: In accordance with FAR 15.101-2(b), the contracting officer has elected to not include past performance as an evaluation factor when using Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection process. Pursuant to FAR 15.304- (c)(3)(iii), past performance need not be evaluated if the contracting officer documents the reason past performance is not an appropriate evaluation factor for the acquisition. Since this acquisition is being pursued as a TO on the NETCENTS-2 Multi Awarded Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (MAIDIQ) contract vehicle, the past performance for all of the contractors in the small and large business pool of vendors on NETCENTS 2 contract was evaluated at the time of award of the basic IDIQ so there is no need to re-evaluate past performance.

4.0 AWARD: The Government will award to the offeror whose proposal has the lowest total evaluated price proposal and meets the minimum technically acceptable (pass) criteria and past performance in accordance with the RFP.