UnrestrictedSectionMv2.0_(DRFP_2.0).docx
DOCX document 40 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Human Capital and Training Solutions (HCaTS) Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- GS02Q15CRR0001
- Issued by
- GSA Federal Acquisition Service
About this file
This document contains a draft request for proposals for the Human Capital and Training Solutions (HCaTS) multiple award indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity contracts.
The General Services Administration intends to issue two solicitations on or around May 19, 2015 - one unrestricted and one set aside for total small businesses. The solicitations seek proposals for multiple award IDIQ task order contracts to provide federal agencies with human capital, training, and organizational performance improvement services. A pre-solicitation conference will be held on or around May 14, 2015 in Washington D.C. Proposals are not being accepted at this time in response to the draft RFP or presolicitation notice. The final RFPs will be posted on FBO under solicitation number GS02Q15CRR0001. Comments on the draft RFP are due by March 30, 2015. The attached draft RFP provides details on the scope of services sought, evaluation factors, and contract terms.
HCaTS Section M
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 50
Human Capital and Training Solutions (HCaTS) has more files on GovTribe.
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
PART IV: REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS
SECTION M: EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD
M.1 FAR 52.252-1 SOLICITATION PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE (FEB 1998)
This solicitation incorporates one or more FAR provisions by reference, with the same force and effect as if they were given in full text. Upon request, the HCaTS CO will make their full text available. In lieu of submitting the full text of those provisions, the Offeror may identify the provision by paragraph identifier and provide the appropriate information with its proposal. Also, the full text of a solicitation provision may be accessed electronically at this address: https://www.acquisition.gov/.
| FAR |
| TITLE |
| DATE |
| 52.217-5 |
| Evaluation of Options |
| JULY 1990 |
M.2 BASIS FOR AWARDS
The source selection process on HCaTS will neither be based on Trade-offs, as prescribed in FAR 15.101-1, nor Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA), as prescribed in FAR 15.101-2. Within the best value continuum, FAR Section 15.101 defines best value as using any one or a combination of source selection approaches. For HCaTS, the best value basis for awards will be determined by the Highest Technically Rated with Fair and Reasonable Prices (HTRFRP).
The HTRFRP approach will best achieve the objective of awarding contracts to Offerors of varying core expertise in a variety of Key Service Areas (KSAs) with qualities that are most important to GSA, OPM and our customers, such as relevant experience, past performance, and accreditations.
HCaTS will consist of two MA-IDIQ task order contracts, referred to as Pools. 40 awards are anticipated in Pool 1 and 40 awards are anticipated in Pool 2. In the event of a tie at the 40th position (as applicable), all Offerors tied will receive an award.
The Government intends to strictly enforce all of the proposal submission requirements outlined in Section L. Failure to comply with these requirements may result in an Offeror’s proposal being rejected as being non-conforming to solicitation requirements.
The Government intends to award contracts without discussions. Initial proposals shall contain the best offer. The Government may conduct clarifications, as prescribed in FAR Paragraph 15.306(a). The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions, if determined necessary, as prescribed in FAR Paragraph 15.306(d).
M.3 SCREENING AND EVALUATION PROCESS
M.3.1 IDENTIFYING THE TOP 40 PROPOSALS
The Government will identify for both Pools the Top 40 proposals plus all tied at the 40th position by their self score as indicated in Attachment J.5.1 (Self Scoring Worksheet Pool 1) and/or Attachment J.5.2 (Self Scoring Worksheet Pool 2).
NOTE: Hereafter, the Top 40 is applicable to both Pools and encompasses all tied at the 40th position.
M.3.2 SCREENING AND EVALUATION PROCESS
Any Offeror in the Top 40 who fails any of the evaluation criteria listed in Section M.4 or their self score is reduced below the Top 40 after Government validation will be removed from consideration for award and notified, in writing, as soon as practicable. The Offeror with the next highest self score shall be added in the eliminated Offerors place.
The Government will perform an initial screening process on the Top 40. The Government will verify that all documents listed on Attachment J.2 (Proposal Checklist) and Attachment J.5.1 (Self Scoring Worksheet Pool 1) and/or J.5.2 (Self Scoring Worksheet Pool 2) were included on the Offeror’s proposal. The Government will also identify if a minimum requirement was not met due to the Offeror not identifying it on Attachment J.2 (Proposal Checklist) or Attachment J.5.1 (Self Scoring Worksheet Pool 1) and/or J.5.2 (Self Scoring Worksheet Pool 2). Depending on the discrepancy(ies), the discrepancy(ies) will be treated as clarifications or the Government will enter into discussions. If the Government enters into discussions, each Offeror in the Top 40 will receive the same opportunity to address the Government’s request(s) to be eligible for contract award.
After the initial screening process, the Government will validate the Top 40’s self scores and the minimum requirements as prescribed in Sections M.4 and M.5. If the Government is unable to make a determination validating a scored element or minimum requirement, the Contracting Officer will allow the Offeror to respond to any clarifying question, but will not be allowed to resubmit or revise any document(s) related to scored elements to cure proposal deficiencies or material omissions, materially alter scored elements of the proposal, and/or otherwise revise scored elements of the proposal. If the Offeror’s clarification allows the Government to validate the scored element or minimum requirement, the Offeror’s score will remain unchanged. However, if the clarification does not allow the Government to validate the scored element or minimum requirement, the score will be reduced in the case of a scored element, and if it is determined that a minimum requirement is not met the Offeror’s proposal will no longer be considered for award. If the Government is initially able to make the determination that a claimed scored element or minimum requirement is unsubstantiated, the score will be reduced in the case of a scored element, and if it is determined that a minimum requirement is not met the Offeror’s proposal will no longer be considered for award.
Once the Top 40 have been evaluated and validated, the Government will then check to verify that these Offerors have proposed fair and reasonable pricing. In the event that an Offeror has not provided fair and reasonable pricing, the Offeror shall be eliminated from further consideration for award unless discussions are conducted. However, the HCaTS CO plans on basing award on initial proposals and does not intend on conducting discussions as stated in Section M.2.
The evaluation process shall continue this cycle until the Top 40 apparent successful Offerors are identified that represent the highest technically rated proposals (based on scores) with fair and reasonable prices. Once this has been accomplished, evaluations will cease and contract awards will be issued.
In the event the evaluation team discovers misleading, falsified, or fraudulent proposal information or supporting documentation, the Offeror shall be eliminated from further consideration for award and may be subject to civil or criminal prosecution under Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code.
M.4 MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS REVIEW
Offerors that initially pass all the evaluation criteria in the Minimum Requirements Review will be further evaluated in accordance with Section M.5, including the evaluation for fair and reasonable pricing in accordance with Section M.7.
Offerors who fail any of the evaluation criteria listed in the Minimum Requirements Review shall be removed from consideration for award and notified, in writing, as soon as practicable.
M.4.1 ELIGIBILITY AND RESPONSIBILITY
The Offeror’s SF 33, Attachment J.2 (Proposal Checklist), Professional Employee Compensation Plan, Uncompensated Overtime Policy, Subcontracting Plan, Meaningful Relationship Commitment Letters (if applicable), Existing Joint Venture/Partnership (if applicable), GSA Form 527s and Financial Statements, SAM website entity record, Section K, Insurance, and Contractor Key Personnel Commitment letters, and Attachment J.4 (Pool Application and Certification) will be evaluated on a pass/fail basis.
Offerors who would like to be considered for cost reimbursable task order awards shall either have their current accounting system audited by the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA), other Cognizant Federal Agency (CFA) other than DCAA, or a Certified Public Accountant (CPA) within the past three years prior to the solicitation closing date for the HCaTS Contracting Officer’s consideration or choose to have their accounting system audited by the DCAA. See Section L.5.1.5.
The Offeror’s subcontracting plan shall be determined acceptable. The Offeror shall be evaluated in accordance with GSAR 552.219-72. Offeror’s with an approved Comprehensive Subcontracting Plans are considered acceptable. See Section L.5.1.6.
The overall responsibility determination will be evaluated on a pass/fail basis. In accordance with FAR Part 9, Offerors that are not deemed responsible shall not be considered for award. A satisfactory record of integrity and business ethics will be required.
In making the overall determination of responsibility, information in the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), the Systems for Award Management (SAM), the certification at FAR 52.209-5 (see Section K), Section K in its entirety (see Section L.5.2.2), the Offeror’s insurance (see Section L.5.1.9.3), the Offeror’s qualification and financial information, as provided on GSA Form 527 (see Section L.5.2.1), and other pertinent data will be considered.
M.4.2 RELEVANT EXPERIENCE PROJECTS
The Offeror shall ensure all the requested proposal submission information is current, accurate, and complete in accordance with Section L.5.2.
Offerors who meet the Relevant Experience Project minimum requirements will be scored in accordance with Section M.6.
M.4.3 PAST PERFORMANCE FOR RELEVANT EXPERIENCE PROJECTS
The Offeror shall ensure all the requested proposal submission information is current, accurate, and complete in accordance with Section L.5.3.
Offerors who meet the minimum requirements for past performance for Relevant Experience Projects will be scored in accordance with Section M.6.
M.5 SCORING FOR RELEVANT EXPERIENCE PROJECTS, PAST PERFORMANCE AND ACCREDITATIONS
Offerors that meet the Minimum Requirements Review in accordance with Section M.4 will be evaluated for points in accordance with Section L.5 and Section M.6.
M.5.1 SCORING FOR RELEVANT EXPERIENCE PROJECTS
For each Relevant Experience Project submitted per Pool in accordance with Section L.5.2, the Offeror will be rated more favorably for Sections L.5.2.4.1 through L.5.2.4.6.
M.5.2 SCORING FOR PAST PERFORMANCE FOR RELEVANT EXPERIENCE PROJECTS
M.5.2.1 PAST PERFORMANCE (PPIRS INFORMATION EXISTS)
For each Relevant Experience Project with an interim or final past performance evaluation in the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) that links to the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) will already have an adjectival rating from the table below. In accordance with the table, each adjectival rating has an assigned point value. In accordance with Section L.5.2.2, each rated Evaluation Area shall be factored into the final score. If an Evaluation Area was not assigned an adjectival rating, that Evaluation Area shall not be averaged into the final score.
| POINT VALUE |
| ADJECTIVAL RATING |
| DEFINITION |
| 5 |
| Exceptional |
| Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government’s benefit. The element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor were highly effective |
| 4 |
| Very Good |
| Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s benefit. The element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor were effective |
| 3 |
| Satisfactory |
| Performance meets contractual requirements. The element being assessed contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor appear or were satisfactory |
| 1 |
| Marginal |
| Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the Contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. |
| 0 |
| Unsatisfactory |
| Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The element being assessed contains a serious problem(s) for which the Contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective. |
M.5.2.2 PAST PERFORMANCE (PPIRS INFORMATION DOES NOT EXIST)
For each Relevant Experience Project where no interim or final past performance evaluation in PPIRS that links to CPARS exists, the Attachment J.6(Past Performance Substitute Form) will have an adjectival rating and point value from the table below. If any Evaluation Area were not assigned an adjectival rating, that Evaluation Area shall not be averaged into the final score.
| POINT VALUE |
| ADJECTIVAL RATING |
| DEFINITION |
| 5 |
| Exceptional |
| Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government’s/Customer’s benefit. The element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor were highly effective |
| 4 |
| Very Good |
| Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s/Customer’s benefit. The element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor were effective |
| 3 |
| Satisfactory |
| Performance meets contractual requirements. The element being assessed contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor appear or were satisfactory |
| 1 |
| Marginal |
| Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the Contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. |
| 0 |
| Unsatisfactory |
| Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The element being assessed contains a serious problem(s) for which the Contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective. |
If the combined average is at least 3.00, the Offeror will pass the Minimum Requirements Review. If the combined average is 2.99 or below, the Offeror will fail the Minimum Requirements Review and shall not be considered for award, provided that a CPARS/PPIRS Report or Attachment J.6 (Past Performance Substitute Form) exists. Offerors that exceed the minimum past performance requirements will receive additional points in accordance with Section M.6.
M.5.2.3 PAST PERFORMANCE SCORING EXAMPLE
This section is for example purposes only to demonstrate how the past performance ratings are scored. Each past performance rating is entered into its corresponding Relevant Experience Project tab in Attachment J.5.1 (Self Scoring Worksheet Pool 1) and/or J.5.2 (Self Scoring Worksheet Pool 2) . The Offeror enters the rating for each Evaluation Area and Attachment J.5.1 (Self Scoring Worksheet Pool 1) and/or J.5.2 (Self Scoring Worksheet Pool 2) autopopulates the correlating score and then the average past performance rating. Points are assigned on the Self-Scoring tab of Attachment J.5.1 (Self Scoring Worksheet Pool 1) and/or J.5.2 (Self Scoring Worksheet Pool 2) based on the average past performance rating. Below is a manual scenario of an Offeror’s past performance ratings for their six Relevant Experience Projects and the totals points allotted to help Offerors understand how their past performance scores are calculated in their Attachment J.5.1 (Self Scoring Worksheet Pool 1) and/or J.5.2 (Self Scoring Worksheet Pool 2).
RELEVANT EXPERIENCE PROJECT 1: Past performance under Relevant Experience Project 1, an Offeror receives the following scores under the most current interim or final CPARS/PPIRS Report:
| Very Good for Quality: | 4 |
| Satisfactory for Schedule: | 3 |
| No Rating for Cost Control: | N/A (Neutral) |
| Satisfactory for Business Relations: | 3 |
| Exceptional for Management: | 5 |
| No Rating for Utilization of Small Business: | N/A (Neutral) |
| Total Number of Points: | 15 |
15 Points divided by the number of scored elements (4) = 3.75 for Project 1.
3.75 for Project 1 meets the minimum requirement and will receive 600 points.
RELEVANT EXPERIENCE PROJECT 2: Past performance under Relevant Experience Project 2, an Offeror receives the following scores under Attachment J.6 (Past Performance Substitute Form):
| Very Good for Quality: | 4 |
| Satisfactory for Schedule: | 3 |
| Satisfactory for Cost Control: | 3 |
| Satisfactory for Business Relations: | 3 |
| Exceptional for Management: | 5 |
| Marginal for Utilization of Small Business: | 2 |
| Total Number of Points: | 20 |
20 Points divided by the number of scored elements (6) = 3.33 for Project 2.
3.33 for Project 2 meets the minimum requirement and will receive 200 points.
RELEVANT EXPERIENCE PROJECT 3: Past performance under Relevant Experience Project 3, an Offeror receives the following scores under a CPARS/PPIRS Report:
| Very Good for Quality: | 5 |
| Satisfactory for Schedule: | N/A |
| Satisfactory for Cost Control: | N/A |
| Satisfactory for Business Relations: | 4 |
| Exceptional for Management: | 5 |
| Marginal for Utilization of Small Business: | 2 |
| Total Number of Points: | 16 |
16 Points divided by the number of scored elements (4) = 4.00 for Relevant Experience Project 3.
4.0 for Project 3 meets the minimum requirement and will receive 1000 points.
RELEVANT EXPERIENCE PROJECT 4: Past performance under Relevant Experience Project 4, an Offeror receives the following scores under Attachment J.6 (Past Performance Substitute Form):
| Exceptional for Quality: | 5 |
| Very Good for Schedule: | 4 |
| Very Good for Cost Control: | 4 |
| Exceptional for Business Relations: | 5 |
| Exceptional for Management: | 5 |
| Very Good for Utilization of Small Business: | 4 |
| Total Number of Points: | 27 |
27 Points divided by the number of scored elements (6) = 4.50 for Relevant Experience Project 4.
4.50 for Relevant Experience Project 4 meets the minimum requirement and will receive 2000 Points.
RELEVANT EXPERIENCE PROJECT 5: Past performance under Relevant Experience Project 5, an Offeror receives the following scores under the most current interim or final CPARS/PPIRS Report:
| Very Good for Quality: | 4 |
| Satisfactory for Schedule: | 3 |
| No Rating for Cost Control: | N/A (Neutral) |
| Satisfactory for Business Relations: | N/A (Neutral) |
| Exceptional for Management: | 5 |
| No Rating for Utilization of Small Business: | N/A (Neutral) |
| Total Number of Points: | 12 |
12 Points divided by the number of scored elements (3) = 4.00 for Relevant Experience Project 5.
4.00 for Relevant Experience Project 5 meets the minimum requirement and will receive 1000 points.
RELEVANT EXPERIENCE PROJECT 6: Past performance under Relevant Experience Project 6, an Offeror receives the following scores under a combination of the most current interim or final PPIRS and Attachments J.6 (Past Performance Substitute Form):
Relevant Experience Project 6 is a “collection of task orders” under a Single-Award IDIQ. The Offeror submits six task orders under the Single Award IDIQ. Two task orders have a PPIRS Report, two task orders have an Attachment J.6 (Past Performance Substitute Form) completed, and two task orders have neither a PPIRS Report nor an Attachment J.6 (Past Performance Substitute Form). The past performance rating is determined for all task orders in the “collection of task orders” as an average of the total points for all divided by the total number of scored elements. The calculating of the past performance rating of a “collection of task orders” is as follows:
Task Order 1 (PPIRS Report):
Very Good for Quality: 4 Very Good for Schedule: 4 Very Good for Cost Control: 4 Very Good for Business Relations: 4 Very Good for Management: 4 No Rating for Utilization of Small Business: N/A (Neutral)
Total Number of Points: 20
20 Points divided by the Number of Scored Elements (5) = 4.00 for “Task Order 1”
Task Order 2 (No PPIRS Report or Attachment J.6 {Past Performance Substitute Form}):
No Rating for Quality: N/A (Neutral) No Rating for Schedule: N/A (Neutral) No Rating for Cost Control: N/A (Neutral) No Rating for Business Relations: N/A (Neutral) No Rating for Management: N/A (Neutral) No Rating for Utilization of Small Business: N/A (Neutral)
Total Number of Points: 0
Task Order 3 (Attachment J.6 {Past Performance Substitute Form}):
Exceptional for Quality: 5 Exceptional for Schedule: 5 Very Good for Cost Control: 4 Very Good for Business Relations: 4 Satisfactory for Management: 3 No Rating for Utilization of Small Business: N/A (Neutral)
Total Number of Points: 21
21 Points divided by the Number of Scored Elements (5) = 4.20 for “Task Order 3”
Task Order 4 (No PPIRS Report or Attachment J.6{Past Performance Substitute Form}):
Very Good for Quality: N/A (Neutral) Very Good for Schedule: N/A (Neutral) Very Good for Cost Control: N/A (Neutral) Very Good for Business Relations: N/A (Neutral) Very Good for Management: N/A (Neutral) No Rating for Utilization of Small Business: N/A (Neutral)
Total Number of Points: 0
Task Order 5 (PPIRS Report):
Satisfactory for Quality: 3 Very Good for Schedule: 4 Satisfactory for Cost Control: 3 Very Good for Business Relations: 4 Satisfactory for Management: 3 No Rating for Utilization of Small Business: N/A (Neutral)
Total Number of Points: 17
17 Points divided by the Number of Scored Elements (5) = 3.40 for “Task Order 5”
Task Order 6 (Attachment J.6{Past Performance Substitute Form}):
Exceptional for Quality: 5 Exceptional for Schedule: 5 Very Good for Cost Control: 4 Very Good for Business Relations: 4 Satisfactory for Management: 3 No Rating for Utilization of Small Business: N/A (Neutral)
Total Number of Points: 21
21 Points divided by the Number of Scored Elements (5) = 4,20 for “Task Order 6”
79 Points divided by the number of scored elements (20) = 3.95 for “Relevant Experience Project 6”
3.95 for Relevant Experience Project 6 meets the minimum requirement and will receive 600 points.
Grand Total Score for Projects 1 through 6 is:
Project 1: 600 Project 2: 200 Project 3: 1000 Project 4: 2000 Project 5: 1000 Project 6: 600
Grand Total: 5,400 Points for past performance rating Relevant Experience Projects
Offerors are strongly cautioned that inability of the Government to contact past performance references directly associated to any Attachment J.6 (Past Performance Substitute Form) from the six Relevant Experience Projects above may result in the Attachment J.6 (Past Performance Substitute Form) not being evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. If the Government finds a more current PPIRS Report than was submitted by the Offeror, the past performance rating will be determined based on this most current PPIRS Report. Furthermore, 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 will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.
M.5.3 SCORING FOR ACCREDITATIONS
The Offeror shall ensure all the requested proposal submission information is current, accurate, and complete in accordance with Section L.5.4.
Offerors who have accreditations will receive additional points in accordance with Section M.6.
M.6 POINT VALUES FOR RELEVANT EXPERIENCE PROJECTS, PAST PERFORMANCE RATINGS AND ACCREDITATIONS
The following scored elements are not minimum or mandatory requirements; however, Offerors who have them in place will be considered more favorably.
After the Minimum Requirements Review is conducted, only those proposals that met the minimum requirements will receive additional points based on the following scoring table.
| Section |
| Element |
| Point Value |
| Number of Potential Occurrences |
| Total Max Points Per Element |
| Total Max Possible Points |
Volume 1 Pool Application and Certification
Points Per Pool
| L.5.3.2.3 |
| More than one KSA is represented in the cumulative of all Relevant Experience Projects |
| One additional KSA |
| 500 |
| Two additional KSAs |
| 1000 |
Points Per Relevant Experience Project
| L.5.2.3.1 |
| The Relevant Experience Project was performed for a Federal customer. The Offeror was the Prime Contractor or First-Tier Subcontractor |
| Performed as Prime Contractor |
| 300 |
| Performed as First Tier Subcontractor |
| 150 |
| L.5.3.2.3 |
| The Relevant Experience Project Contains more than one KSA. |
| 6 |
| 7200 |
| 7200 |
| One additional KSA |
| 600 |
| Two additional KSAs |
| 1200 |
| L.5.3.2.1 |
| The Offeror will be assigned points if the value of the Project is equal to or greater than $100,000. |
| Project’s value is equal to or greater than $100,000 but less than $300,000 on an annual basis. |
| 125 |
| Project’s value is equal to or greater than $300,000 but less than $500,000 on an annual basis. |
| 150 |
| Project’s value is equal to or greater than $500,000 but less than $700,000 on an annual basis. |
| 175 |
| Project’s value is equal to or greater than $700,000 but less than $900,000 on an annual basis. |
| 200 |
| Project’s value is equal to or greater than $900,000 on an annual basis. |
| 225 |
| L.5.3.2.2 |
| The Offeror will be assigned points if the period of performance is equal to or greater than 13 months. |
| 6 |
| 900 |
| 900 |
| The period of performance is equal to or greater than 13 months but less than 37 months. |
| 100 |
| The period of performance is equal to or greater than 37 months but less than 61 months. |
| 125 |
| The period of performance is equal to or greater than 61 months. |
| 150 |
| L.5.3.2.5 |
| The project involves subcontracting/teaming for services with at least three separate and distinct entities. |
| 85 |
| 6 |
| 510 |
| 510 |
| L.5.3.2.6 |
| The project is inclusive of Cost-Reimbursement. |
| 50 |
| 2 |
| 100 |
| 100 |
| L.5.4.5 |
| The Offeror included either a PPIRS or a Past Performance Substitute Form that shows an average rating that is equal to or greater than 3.00. |
15000
| The rating is equal to or greater than 3.00, but less than 3.50. |
| 200 |
| The rating is equal to or greater than 3.50, but less than 3.75. |
| 400 |
| The rating is equal to or greater than 3.75, but less than 4.00. |
| 600 |
| The rating is equal to or greater than 4.00, but less than 4.25. |
| 1000 |
| The rating is equal to or greater than 4.25, but less than 4.50. |
| 1500 |
| The rating is equal to or greater than 4.50, but less than 4.75. |
| 2000 |
12000
| The rating is equal to or greater than 4.75. |
| 2500 |
15000
| L.5.3.4 |
| The Offeror met or exceeded their "Total" small business goals. |
| 75 |
| 6 |
| 450 |
| 450 |
Volume IV Accreditations
| L.5.4.1 |
| Estimating System |
| 25 |
| 1 |
| 25 |
| 25 |
| L.5.4.2 |
| Purchasing System |
| 25 |
| 1 |
| 25 |
| 25 |
| L.5.4.3 |
| FPRA, FPRR or Audited Billing Rates |
| FPRA |
| 20 |
| FPRR |
| 15 |
| Audited Billing Rates |
| 10 |
| L.5.4.4 |
| EVMS ANSI/EIA Standard-748 |
| 10 |
| 1 |
| 10 |
| 10 |
| L.5.4.5 |
| ISO 9001:2008 Certification |
| 30 |
| 1 |
| 30 |
| 30 |
| L.5.4.6 |
| ISO/IEC 27001:2013 Certification |
| 30 |
| 1 |
| 30 |
| 30 |
| Total |
| 28,450 |
M.7 COST/PRICE
The Offeror shall ensure all the requested proposal submission information is current, accurate, and complete in accordance with Section L.
The Offeror’s cost/price proposal shall be used to determine whether the ceiling rates proposed for each labor category are fair and reasonable in order to establish ceiling rates for Time-and-Material/Labor-Hour contract types in accordance with Section B.2.5.1.
For each proposed direct labor rate, the basis of fair and reasonableness shall be the Department of Labor (DOL) Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Service Occupational Classifications (SOC), as explained in Section L.5.5.1.
For each indirect rate, the basis of fair and reasonableness shall be the Offeror’s most current audited billing rates, forward pricing rate agreements, and/or standard accounting system generated rates for each HCaTS labor category.
For profit, the basis of fair and reasonableness shall be no more than 7% for each HCaTS labor category as prescribed in Section L.5.5.2.
If an Offeror does not meet one or more of these parameters for any labor category, the Offeror is strongly advised to provide clear and convincing rationale to support the proposed direct/indirect and/or profit rate(s). In the event the rationale is not determined reasonable, the proposal will be deemed to have a ceiling rate(s) that is not considered fair and reasonable and the proposal shall not be eligible for award, regardless of technical score.
Cost/Price proposals may only be revised as a result of discussions and Offerors are advised that the Government intends to make award based on initial proposals without discussions.
A proposal may also be rejected if any one or more required submittals is missing or incomplete on the Cost/Price Worksheet in accordance with Attachment J.8 (Direct Labor Rate Ranges); or, the Government determines the lack of balanced pricing poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.
(END OF SECTION M)
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .