FCHS2_Section_M_Evaluation_Factor_for_Award.pdf

Foundation Cloud Hosting Services II (FCHS2) Section M

M-1

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1 Basis for Award The Government intends to award multiple IDIQ contracts and task orders to Offerors whose proposals represent the best value to the Government. Within the best-value process the Government will evaluate each proposal for the IDIQ contracts in accordance with a two-phase advisory down-select process utilizing confidence ratings. The Government may elect to award to an Offeror who is the not the lowest price Offeror. In that case, a price/technical tradeoff will be conducted and documented.

The Government will evaluate each quote for the task orders in accordance with the evaluation criteria listed in each Day One Use Case.

The overall price to the Government may become the ultimate determining criterion for award of the IDIQ contracts and Day One Use Cases as offers become more equal based on non-price factors.

The Government reserves the right not to make an award as a result of this competition, if in the determination of the Government none of the submissions would provide satisfactory performance at a price that is considered fair and reasonable and/or economically feasible.

Furthermore, the Government reserves the right to award no IDIQ contracts and task orders at all, depending on the quality of proposals, the availability of funding, and the continued existence of the requirement.

M.2 Evaluation Overview The Government will conduct an initial review of the proposal received to verify conformance with RFP submission requirements prior to commencement of technical evaluations. Partial proposals will not be considered. The technical submissions will be evaluated separately from the price submissions.

Evaluation Process for Phase I:

The Technical Evaluation Team (TET) will convene to evaluate all submissions and provide the CO with the results of the initial evaluation.

The CO will notify each respondent of the results of the initial evaluation in writing and will provide each respondent with a recommendation on participation in the next phase of the acquisition.

The Government will provide general determination to offerors that are not recommended to participate further in the acquisition process. All offerors may decide to continue through the acquisition process and submit proposals.

Evaluation Process for Phase II:

The Government intends to award three (3) to five (5) IDIQ contracts and five (5) Day One task orders form this RFP without discussions with offerors. Therefore, an Offeror’s initial offer for both the IDIQ contract and Day One task orders will contain the best terms and final price

M-2 reductions. An evaluation utilizing confidence ratings is anticipated for Phase II. The Government will evaluate offers utilizing a two-step process as explained below:

a) Step 1 – Evaluation of IDIQ Offers. The Government will first evaluate Offeror’s IDIQ proposals in accordance with the IDIQ evaluation factors to determine the best value to the Government considering non-price and price factors.

b) Step 2 – Evaluation of Task Order Offers. The Government will then evaluate Offeror’s proposals submitted for each Day One Use Cases in accordance with the Day One Use Cases’ evaluation factors to determine the best value to the Government considering non-price and price factors. Offerors submitting proposals determined by the Government to be the best value will be selected for the award of a specific task order.

c) Offerors will be notified of the status of their proposals only after all IDIQ and Day One Use Case proposals have been evaluated and awardee for the IDIQ contracts and task orders have been determined.

d) The Government reserves the right to conduct exchanges with Offerors if necessary.

e) This RFP in no way obligates the Government to make an award or reimburse the Offeror for any costs incurred in preparing its response to this RFP.

M.3 Evaluation Criteria IDIQ Phase I Evaluation Qualifications. For Phase I of the IDIQ, the Government shall consider four (4) non-price qualifications as follows in Table 1:

Table 1 - Phase I

Qualification 1: Business Viability and Subcontracting Plan

SOW Reference(s):

C.2 Business Objectives

Videos shall be evaluated based on the offeror’s demonstrated knowledge and business viability as it relates to the varieties of cloud service offerings and subcontract partners, including small, disadvantaged, hub-zone, women/minority owned, and Indian Small Business Economic Enterprise (ISBEE), etc. business relationships to meet a wide variety of customer thresholds and requirements. (Alternatively, what percent of your cloud hosting funds have been done through sub-contracts?)

Qualification 2: Technical Approach and Innovations

SOW Reference(s):

C.2.1 Achieving Net-Zero

C.2.2 Attributes

Videos shall be evaluated based on the offeror’s demonstrated knowledge of cloud-smart emerging technologies, innovations and adaptations to embrace modernization initiatives while conforming to Federal Information Security Modernization Act (FISMA) standards. This includes, but not limited to, your approach to achieve net-zero “green” data centers initiatives, a growing initiative to be measured and results reported.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/2521

M-3

C.4.7 Licensing

Qualification 3: Service Delivery through a variety of cloud service lines and catalogs

SOW Reference(s):

C.3.2 Establishing Cloud Services Catalogs

C.4.1 FedRAMP Technical Objectives

Videos shall be evaluated based on the offeror’s demonstrated Service Delivery capacity, experience, and key FedRAMP authorized cloud service offerings and sub-applications you’re qualified to provide including with partners to maximize the numbers of IaaS, PaaS, and SaaS cloud services, application catalogs, software tools and other sub-applications as referenced in Section C Statement of Work Requirements, Section C.3.1 and - “Table 1 - Cloud Services

– Lines of Business” to fulfill a vast array of individual task orders.

Qualification 4: Current Capacity in Hosting Multi- Tenant and Major Application Cloud Environments

SOW Reference(s):

C.2.3 Services

C.3.3 Enterprise-wide Requirements

C.4.2 Open Standards

C.4.3 Hosting Resources

C.4.6 Hosting Major Applications

Videos shall be evaluated based on the offeror’s overall approach to identifying success in building and managing multi-tenant and/or Major Application IaaS/PaaS hosting environments from selecting the cloud provider, seeking open standards, ensuring portability and growth. Include whether you can host cloud services in the Continental US and whether you can provide redundancy at least 250 miles apart. Response should include how you ensure adequate levels of confidentiality, integrity, and availability while balancing a cost-effective objective.

IDIQ Phase II Evaluation Factors. For the IDIQ Awards, the Government shall consider six

(6) non-price factors and Price.

The evaluation factors for Phase II are listed in descending order of importance as identified below in Table 2. Non-price factors are more important collectively than price.

Table 2 – Phase II

Factor 1: Cloud Experience

SOW Reference(s):

C.1.4 Government Wide C.3.2 Business Management

Proposals shall be evaluated based on the offeror’s cloud experience that demonstrates your most qualified capacity provisioning and supporting cloud tenant(s), including but not limited to use of automation, dashboard tools, performance standards, data protection thresholds, incident response

M-4

Table 1 – Cloud Services C.4.4 Provisioning C.4.6 Hosting Major Applications techniques, change management coordination, triggers/reports for customer inclusion, and monitoring real-time usage accounting.

Factor 2: Organizational Capacity and Employee Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities

SOW Reference(s):

C.3 Management Objectives

Proposals shall be evaluated based on the offeror’s overall approach to managing customer expectations, measure their satisfaction, and meet their service level agreements through your combined business processes, customer forums, and providing qualified personnel? For example, how do you ensure pre-solicitation demonstrations, offers, invoices, and after award service deliverables are on target and timely?

Include your organizational approach for employee preparedness, qualifications, certifications, recruitment, and retention standards to ensure they have capacity to adjust to customer’s evolving needs.

Factor 3: Information Security and Regulatory Compliance / Partnership in A&A Process meeting Security Authorities

SOW Reference(s):

C.4.5 A&A and Technical Services C.5 Security Objectives

Proposals shall be evaluated based on the offeror’s demonstrated Information Security and Regulatory Compliance approach. What processes do you employ to ensure customers have the cutting edge, proven, intelligent, and automated Assessment and Authorization (A&A) approach on your managed tenant’s while guarding against innovative cloud environment threats and meet Federal laws and guidelines, e.g., FISMA, Circular A-130, Ipv6, TIC 3.0, accessibility, AI, DR. Elaborate on how security controls are clearly and efficiently inherited from provider to customer.

Factor 4: Modernization Initiatives / Adoption Barriers

SOW Reference(s):

C.1.5 Current Operational Constraints C.4 Technical Objectives

Proposals shall be evaluated based on the offeror’s demonstrated Modernization Initiatives approach. What recommendations do you have to address and overcome DOI cloud modernization and adoption “migration” current operational constraint barriers being (1) cloud security in hybrid models and (2) availability from geographically dispersed locations. Include your standards and tools from pre-award discovery to other process/tools for application rationalization, and implementing technical phases throughout life cycle, providing customer education/job aids?

Factor 5: Past Performance

SOW Reference(s):

C.1.4 Government Wide C.2.3 Services

Proposals shall be evaluated based on the offeror’s demonstrated past performance as it relates to cloud-based contract service offerings including your process in evaluating and establishing sub-contracts and serving the Federal government community.

M-5

C.3.1 Business Management

Factor 6: Small Business Participation

SOW Reference(s):

C.3 Management Objectives C.3.2 Establishing Cloud Services Catalogs

The Government will evaluate the following to determine if the offeror met or exceeded the requirements:

1. The extent to which firms as defined in FAR Part 19, are specifically identified in proposals.

2. The extent to which offerors demonstrate substantive commitment to small business firms, such as, letters of commitment, Joint Ventures, mentor/protégé agreements, or other demonstrations of commitment (i.e., binding commitments will become enforceable/contractual requirements).

3. Identification of the type and variety of the work small firms are to perform (i.e., binding commitments will become enforceable/contractual requirements).

4. The extent of participation of small business prime offerors and small business subcontractors in terms of the value of the total acquisition (total contract value) (i.e., binding commitments will become enforceable/contractual requirements).

5. The extent to which the offeror provides detailed explanations/documentation supporting the proposed 4307 quantitative participation.

6. Extent to which the offeror complied with requirements of FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns (i.e., binding commitments will become enforceable/contractual requirements).

7. Extent to which the offeror complied with requirements of FAR 52.219-9 Small Business Subcontracting Plan (when applicable) (i.e., binding commitments will become enforceable/contractual requirements). The Government will evaluate the proposal to determine which Offeror proposes the best value in terms of Small Business Participation. The work to be performed directly by a small business prime offeror will also be evaluated as Small Business Participation.

The Small Business Participation Commitment Document will become part of the resultant contract. The offeror is cautioned that the Government may use data provided in the offeror's proposal in addition to data obtained from sources such as the Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS)

M-6 or any other known sources not provided by the offeror, such as CPARS reports.

Subcontracting plans shall be evaluated in pursuant to FAR 19.705-4.

Price Evaluation. The Government will evaluate the completeness of the proposals in response to this RFP, and compliance with instructions provided herein, and the proposed pricing. The ordering activity will evaluate the proposals to consider the level of effort and the mix of labor proposed to perform the SOW and for determining that the total price is reasonable. The Government will conduct a price analysis to determine if the proposed prices are complete, fair, and reasonable. The Government reserves the right to perform a price realism analysis if in the best interest of the Government but is not required to do so.

The Government will evaluate proposals for award purposes by reviewing pricing for all periods of performance. The Government may determine that a proposal is unacceptable if any of the pricing is unbalanced; pricing is unbalanced where the contracting officer is reasonably uncertain that the price offered reflects the true cost to the Government. Evaluation of optional pricing shall not obligate the Government to exercise options. Evaluation will also include the optional six-month extension in accordance with the AQD Evaluation of Options Provisions (MAR 2022).

AQD Local Provision – Evaluation of Options Provision (MAR 2022) The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic award. To account for the possible use of the additional six-month option period(s) permitted under 52.217-8, the Government will take the price for the final (or highest priced) option period, prorated to a six-month value, and add it to the sum of the base plus all option periods. The agency’s price evaluation will mathematically document the calculation of adding the six months of services for the option to extend services to the total contract price in the award summary.

This amount will be used for comparative evaluation for award purposes only. 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 options.

FAR 52.217-8 can be exercised at any point during the period of performance of the contract and applies to the period of performance immediately preceding exercising the option.

(End of Provision)

M.3.1 Confidence Rating In addition to technical approach evaluation above, both the advisory down-select (Phase I) and the Phase II evaluations include a confidence rating (Tables 3 and 4) for each qualification and factor.

M-7

Table 3 – Criteria Confidence Rating-Phase I

Rating Definition

High Confidence

(HC)

The Government has high confidence that the Offeror understands the requirement, proposes a sound, feasible, practical approach, and will be successful in performing the contract with little or no Government intervention.

Low Confidence

(LC)

The Government has no confidence that the Offeror understands the requirement, proposes a sound, feasible, practical approach, or will be successful in performing the contract even without substantial Government intervention.

Table 4 – Criteria Confidence Rating-Phase II

Rating Definition

High Confidence

(HC)

The Government has high confidence that the Offeror understands the requirement, proposes a sound, feasible, practical approach, and will be successful in performing the contract with little or no Government intervention.

Some Confidence

(SC)

The Government has some confidence that the Offeror understands the requirement, proposes a sound, feasible, practical approach, and will be successful in performing the contract with some Government intervention.

Low Confidence

(LC)

The Government has no confidence that the Offeror understands the requirement, proposes a sound, feasible, practical approach, or will be successful in performing the contract even without substantial Government intervention.

Neutral Confidence (For Past

Performance Only)

An offeror without a record of relevant past performance, or who information on past performance is not available, will be assigned a rating of Neutral Confidence. Offerors assigned a Neutral Confidence rating will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.

Definitions. The following definitions apply for the purpose of this acquisition:

a) Recent is defined as work performed by the offeror within the last three (3) years from the closing date of this RFP.

b) Relevant is defined as work that is similar in scope, size, complexity, and magnitude of the quantity, volume and estimated cost of the work described in this RFP.

M-8

c) Scope is defined as the range of work, skill, and/or tasks that are similar in nature to the requirements identified in this RFP.

d) Size is defined as the dollar value, number of personnel in similar skill sets and/or number of users supported that are similar in nature to the requirements identified in this

RFP.