Section M - Evaluation Factors.docx

Solicitation No. GS-10F-12-LP-R-0002 SECTION M Dial-tone Infrastructure Procurement System (DIPS)

SECTION M -- EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1. 52.252-1 Solicitation Provisions Incorporated by Reference (FEB 1998) This solicitation incorporates one or more solicitation provisions by reference, with the same force and effect as if they were given in full text. Upon request, the Contracting Officer will make their full text available. The offeror is cautioned that the listed provisions may include blocks that must be completed by the offeror and submitted with its quotation or offer. 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 quotation or offer. Also, the full text of a solicitation provision may be accessed electronically at this/these address(es):

(a) Federal Acquisition Regulation: https://www.acquisition.gov/far/

(b) General Services Acquisition Manual: https://www.acquisition.gov/GSAM/gsam.html

(End of provision)

FAR

PROVISION NO.

PROVISION TITLE AND DATE

M.2 Eligibility for Award Proposals shall be prepared in accordance with the instructions in Section L of the solicitation, shall address each elements as defined herein this Section M regarding each evaluation Factor (and any sub-factor), and must clearly demonstrate the Offeror’s ability to meet all requirements specified in the Solicitation as a whole. Failure to furnish full and complete information that demonstrates the Offeror’s ability to satisfy the requirements may cause the offer to be considered technically unacceptable.

For an offer to be eligible for award the Offeror must be determined to be responsible and the proposal must not include any deficiencies. Volume I of the proposal shall include reference and explanation of any exceptions or deviations taken or conditional assumptions made with respect to the Offeror’s proposal versus the solicitation. All exceptions taken must contain sufficient justification to permit evaluation. All benefits to the Government shall be explained for each exception taken. Exceptions will not automatically cause a proposal to be termed unacceptable, however, if the exception(s) fails to meet minimum RFP requirements and/or results in deviations from the requirements of this Solicitation, the Government shall note such exceptions as a deficiency.

The determination of the Offeror’s responsibility will be made by the Contracting OfficerThe Government will make determinations of responsibility in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 9.1, Responsible Prospective Contractors, using information available from other sources.

M.3 Method of Award The Contracting Officer will award a firm fixed-price contract to that responsible Offeror whose proposal the Source Selection Authority determines conforms to the solicitation, is fair and reasonable, and offers the best overall value to the Government, considering the non-price factors described herein, and price.

In evaluating proposals, all evaluation factors, other than price, when combined, are considered significantly more important than the price. Factors 1 – 3 are listed in descending order of importance. Factors 1 and 2 are considered equal in importance and slightly more important than Factor 3 when combined. All sub-factors are considered equal in importance to one another within its respective Factor. See below for detailed evaluation factor and rating criteria information.

As part of the evaluation, the Government will evaluate betterments in proposals relative to the minimum standards in the RFP to determine if they offer additional value to the Government. In addition, innovations in proposals will be evaluated to determine if creative ideas of the Offeror are a better value to the Government compared to the minimum criteria

M.3.3 Definitions for use in Source Selection Process

The following definitions shall be used during evaluations of the proposals to ensure consistency amongst Board members when individual evaluations are being conducted.

M.4 EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUB-FACTORS: Proposals shall be evaluated and rated against the below identified factors from which the SSA (CO) will make a best value source selection award determination. All non-price (technical) factors are considered significantly more important than price. Factors 1 – 3 are listed in descending order of importance. Factors 1 and 2 are considered equal in importance and slightly more important than Factor 3 when combined. All sub-factors are considered equal in importance to one another within its respective Factor. See below for detailed evaluation factor and rating criteria information.

Factor 2: Relevant Experience

Factor 3: Past Performance

Factor 4: Price

M.4.1 FACTOR 1 – Management Approach

This Factor consists of five (5) sub-factors; each sub-factor corresponds to a separate plan and shall be evaluated separately. Proposals shall include each of the five (5) required plans; failure to provide any one plan shall result in a deficiency and will cause the overall rating for Factor 1 to be Unacceptable. No additional plans/narrative outside of the requirements identified below shall be submitted nor evaluated. Offerors shall submit, in narrative format, the following Plans:

Sub-factor 1(a): Transition Plan (see SOW, para C.7.1) The Transition Plan shall (a) describe the general approach in implementing the total project and system cutover(s); (b) identify service delivery location(s), (c) provide a milestone schedule for the site(s), and (d) describe the process in which required updates will be accomplished, including approval. ***NOTE: Offerors are advised that submitted Transition Plan shall include a description of proposed procedures for both contract start-up and contract closeout (i.e. transitioning into a new contract from the existing vendor as well as transitioning out of the existing contract to a new vendor). Reference Section H – Special Contract Requirements (specifically, sub-para H.20.1 – Transition Planning and Execution), for additional requirements regarding transition periods under this Contract.

Sub-factor 1(b): Overall Management Plan (see SOW, para C.7.2) The Overall Management Plan shall (a) describe the methodology that will be utilized to ensure effective contract performance, (b) identify necessary resources (i.e. key personnel, support staff, office locations, sub-contractor management, equipment availability, etc.) required for effective contract performance, and (c) define roles and qualifications of key personnel responsible for contract performance.

Sub-factor 1(c): Quality Control Plan (see SOW, para C.7.3) The Quality Control Plan shall (a) define and describe methods and controls to be implemented that shall ensure compliance with Contract, (b) identify acceptable service level agreements (SLA) including the proposed maximum percent deficient (or number of defective service instances) considered satisfactory by the Offeror, (c) identify factors to be measured/methods to be utilized for collecting data and/or performing analysis of service efforts to ensure SLA levels are being met, (d) identify proposed delivery schedule IAW Section F requirements, (e) identify method for ensuring compliance throughout contract performance with approved schedules and work functions as identified in approved plans, (f) identify method for ensuring compliance with appropriate safety codes/procedures, and (g) method for ensuring compliance with industry recognized levels of quality workmanship and craft practices. The narrative for items (f) and (g) shall include discussion on changes that may occur throughout the life of the contract and how the Offeror will ensure such changes are incorporated into contract performance.

Sub-factor 1(d): Corrective Maintenance Plan (see SOW, para C.10.3) The Corrective Maintenance Plan shall include narrative describing trouble handling procedures including, at a minimum (a) centralized trouble reporting, (b) determination of trouble causes and how identified troubles will be corrected, (c) cooperation with other contractors and Government personnel, (d) audit trails, (e) response to customer organizations’ inquiries, (f) differentiation for trouble escalation of normal and emergency events, (g) review procedures to ensure adequate report management and effective escalation procedures, (h) distribution of trouble report and performance information to customer organizations, and (i) identification of trouble handling points of contacts.

The narratives for each plan shall address all elements required in the SOW and as summarized above. The narrative should be in sufficient detail to provide an overview of the planned approach, any major events and other critical aspects applicable to the particular type of plan so as to demonstrate an understanding and familiarity of the development requirements in the RFP.

NOTE: At contract award, the plans submitted as a part of the successful Offeror’s proposal will be incorporated as attachments to the contract.

M.4.2 FACTOR 2 – Relevant Experience

This factor considers the extent of the Offeror’s past experience (i.e. “what” an Offeror has done for previous projects) on projects of similar size and scope. The Offeror shall submit information on at least three (3), but no more than five (5), relevant projects of similar size and scope performed (i.e. completed or currently being performed) within the last three (3) years from the date proposals are due. “Relevant” is defined as projects similar to this Solicitation in size (i.e. number of service locations/lines serviced and dollar value of services rendered) and that have a logical connection with the requirements of this Solicitation by including similar scope elements (i.e services relevant to this Solicitation including but not limited to all aspects of services, quality, interconnect ability and maintenance of the analog and/or digital services described herein this Solicitation).

For purposes of determining “similar size and scope”, experience that is considered especially relevant for this Solicitation, and for which a higher rating may be assigned, includes: 1) telecommunications service provided concurrently at multiple service locations and/or through multiple and varied number of lines of service (i.e. service provided in five different cities to buildings requiring a range of service lines from as little as 2 lines to hundreds of lines in a single building); 2) similar contract type (i.e. multiple year performance periods, firm fixed price contracts, and/or indefinite delivery indefinite quantity/requirements type contracts); 3) telecommunication services provided to commercial (i.e. non-residential) service customers (i.e. federal agencies, municipalities, private business enterprises, etc.); and 4) execution of performance based project scopes.

Projects demonstrating functions, responsibilities and controls exercised by the Offeror which are the same or similar to that required under this Solicitation will likely receive a higher rating. Submitted projects shall demonstrate at least three (3) years experience in a telecommunications environment similar to that required under this Solicitation considering relevant size and scope as identified above.

This criterion will be evaluated for the quality of experience demonstrated. The greater the relevancy of the Offeror’s project experience to this Solicitation, the more likely Offerors will receive a higher rating during evaluations. Offerors that demonstrate a higher degree of relevant experience will be evaluated more favorably. The minimum submission requirements for this factor are defined below.

1) A list of at least three (3), but no more than five (5), similar projects completed or currently being performed. Offerors shall explain how the information provided is relevant to the proposed acquisition.

2) For each project identified in the submitted list, the Offeror shall submit an information sheet inclusive of a narrative summary for the project, limited to no more than one (1) single-sided page each, using the Project Experience Form attached (See Section M – Addendum).

3) Narrative summaries of the submitted projects shall demonstrate the Offeror’s capabilities, technical expertise, and experience managing complex projects with reference to considerations of timeliness and technical success. Offerors shall include in the narrative summary a description of the ability to interface with Local Exchange Carrier/Other Carrier, as applicable. Offerors shall include narrative as to the extent the project was performance based.

4) Project Owner Point of Contact: Offerors shall provide a representative of the project owner for the Project Owner Point of Contact. Persons other than a representative of the entity not responsible for award/administration of the contract under which the project was performed shall not be considered.

M.4.3 FACTOR 3 – Past Performance

This factor considers the quality of the Offeror’s past performance (i.e. “how well” an Offeror has performed on previous projects), within the last three (3) years, in performing contracts for telecommunications services similar to that of this RFP with regards to considerations such areas as technical success and customer satisfaction. This factor also considers the quality of the offeror’s performance in carrying out the work required. The Government will evaluate the relative merits of each Offeror's past performance. The Government reserves the right to consider all aspects of an offeror's performance history, but may attribute more significance to projects that demonstrate performance on relevant projects similar to that of this RFP. The minimum submission requirements for this factor are defined below.

The Government will consider information provided by reference (see Customer Satisfaction Survey) as well as other relevant information from other sources (such as past performance databases) when evaluating the Offeror’s past performance. If negative information is received, the Offeror will be given an opportunity to respond.

In accordance with FAR 42.1503(e), past performance of the Offeror will be evaluated using the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), as well as customer satisfaction surveys. All performance ratings for the Offeror for contracts completed within the past three (3) years from the date proposals are due shall be considered. If an Offeror does not have past performance available in PPIRS, the Customer Satisfaction Surveys will be used exclusively. A lack of past performance information will not result in the Offeror being rated favorably or unfavorably for this Factor. Government databases will be checked and previous customers may be contacted as references.

NOTE: All projects submitted on a Customer Satisfaction Survey must have been completed within the last three (3) years from the date proposals are due. Further instructions are found at the top of the Customer Satisfaction Surveys. The Government reserves the right to contact the evaluator on previous Government or private sector work to verify the offeror’s construction/design performance.

Submittal Requirements: Offerors shall submit a list all owners/customers (including current point of contact, phone number, and e-mail address) to whom a Customer Satisfaction Survey was provided. The list shall also identify the name of the project itself and include a description of how the project is relevant to this RFP. A reproducible Customer Satisfaction Survey form is provided (see Section M – Addendum). NO MORE THAN THREE (3) CUSTOMER SATISFACTION SURVEYS SHOULD BE SUBMITTED FOR ANY OFFEROR. Should more than three (3) surveys be received, the Government shall not consider any additional surveys after the third survey is received. To be considered, the surveys must be completed by the owners/customers and emailed directly by the owner/customer to the CO (kimberlee.wallentine@gsa.gov) for receipt no later than the time and date proposals are due. Surveys submitted directly by Offerors themselves or those included in the Offeror’s technical proposals will not be considered. The Government reserves the right to contact the identified references provided in an Offeror’s proposal should a survey not be received by the date proposals are due. Each survey shall include a designation to include the following (either in the subject line or as the first line of the email body):

“GS10F12LPR0002, DIPS, Customer Satisfaction Survey for [enter Contractor Name for which survey was completed])”

NOTE: Customer Satisfaction Surveys must be completed by a representative of the project owner. Surveys completed by other contractors or entities not responsible for award/administration of the contract under which the project was performed shall not be considered.

M.4.5 FACTOR 4 – Price

Offerors shall submit a complete price proposal separately from the technical proposal in the provided format at Section B (i.e. Schedule s A – E) and in the Total Evaluated Price Worksheet (in Section B). Pricing shall be provided for all items in the Schedules and shall be provided for all three areas (WA, OR and ID) in the tri-state region covered under this Solicitation; proposals omitting any of the information will be considered incomplete and cannot be considered for award. Price will not be rated or scored, but will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness through the use of a price analysis.

The Government will also check for appearance of unbalanced line item prices or option year escalations. As price is an indicator that the Offeror understands the scope and level of effort, price will be evaluated for reasonableness and used in performing the best value trade off decision. The Government may use various price analysis techniques and procedures to determine price reasonableness.

M.5 PROPOSAL EVALUATION

M.5.1 Compliance Appraisal

Proposals will be reviewed to verify compliance with the requirements of the Solicitation. Offerors may be given the opportunity to clarify certain aspects of proposals or to resolve clerical errors. Failure to comply with the RFP requirements may result in the offeror’s proposal not receiving further consideration.

M.5.2 Initial Evaluation

Technical proposals will be reviewed and evaluated for conformance to the requirements specified in this RFP under section “M.4. Evaluation Factors and Sub-factors”. Price proposals will be reviewed and evaluated for price reasonableness in accordance with FAR 15.404, as applicable. If GSA decides to communicate with the offerors prior to discussions, it shall be limited to information addressing adverse past performance. Such communications shall not provide an opportunity for the Offeror to revise its proposal.

M.5.3 Competitive Range Determination

It is the intent of the Government to award without discussions. However, if award without discussions cannot be made, the Contracting Officer may establish a competitive range comprised of the most highly rated proposals based on the ratings of each proposal against all evaluation criteria.

M.5.4 Discussions

If discussions are determined necessary by the Contracting Officer, a competitive range will be established, and then the Contracting Officer may conduct one or more rounds of written and oral discussions with each offeror within the competitive range. The primary objective of these discussions is to maximize the Government’s ability to obtain best value based on the requirements and the evaluation factors set forth in this RFP. Discussions shall discuss, at a minimum, significant weaknesses and deficiencies identified in an Offeror’s Proposal.

M.5.5 Final Proposal Submission.

At the conclusion of all discussions, Offerors remaining in the competitive range shall be given the opportunity to submit final revised proposals (FPRs). The Contracting Officer will identify the due date and time for Offerors to submit FPRs. The Offeror’s FPR shall address any outstanding issues in the technical proposal, price schedules, supporting documentation, and other areas such as the Subcontracting Plan or exceptions to the RFP.

M.5.6 Final Proposal Evaluation

FPRs will be evaluated in same manner as the initial proposals using the same factors and sub-factors and following the same procedures. Final strengths, weaknesses and deficiencies will be identified based on the FPR submission and final ratings will be assigned to each Offer based on the FPR submission.

Section M – Addendums

(see following pages)

(i) Relevant Project Experience Form

(ii) Customer Satisfaction Survey

Relevant Project Experience Form Project Name

Location

Original Contract Amount

Final Contract Amount

Contract Start Date

Date Completed (or Expected Completion if on-going)

Total Lines/Locations Serviced

___________ No. of Lines and/or _____________ No. of Locations

Role on Project (i.e. Prime, Subcontractor, Joint Venture partner)

Number of first tier subcontractors

Name/Role of each first tier Subcontractor ________________________ Subcontractor #1 Role: _____________________ ________________________ Subcontractor #2 Role:_____________________ ________________________ Subcontractor #3 Role: _____________________

Owner Contact (Name)

Owner Contact (Title)

Owner Contact (Address)

Owner Contact (Phone)

Owner Contact (EMAIL)

Summary of Actual Performance Under Scope

Describe type of project:

**If no, include additional narrative on separate sheet as to why/what remedies/mitigation used.

Customer Satisfaction Survey

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

1. Contractor Name:

2. Contract Number/Project Title:

____Cost Reimbursement ___ Other (Please Specify)

Name:

Phone & Email:

7. Period of Performance:

Contract Award Date:

Contract End Date:

Completed: _____ Yes ______ No

8. Dollar Amount of Contract Award: $__________ Total Dollar Value with Mods:

9. Role of Contractor in project: ______ Prime ______ Subcontractor

10. Description of Contract Service:

11. Complexity of Work: Difficult: ____________ Routine: ____________

NOTE: Please use adjectival ratings from attached sheet.

a. Quality of Work

E VG A M UA

b. Personnel

E VG A M UA

c. Cost/Budget Control

E VG A M UA

d. Timeliness

E VG A M UA

e. Business Relations

E VG A M UA

f. Subcontractor Mgmt

E VG A M UA

g. CustomerSatisfaction

E VG A M UA

15. Would you select this firm again? ____ Yes ____ No

Section M – Addendum (cont.)

CUSTOMER SATISFACTION SURVEY

PAST PERFORMANCE RATING GUIDELINES: Summarize Contractor Performance in each of the rating areas. Assign each area a rating as defined below. Use the following instructions as guidance in making these evaluations.

Personnel/Service

-Compliance w/contract requirements -Accuracy of reports -Appropriateness of personnel -Technical excellence

Cost Control

-Within budget -Current, accurate, complete billings -Relationship of negotiated costs to actuals -Cost efficiencies -Change orders issued Timeliness of Performance

-Met interim milestones -Reliable -Responsive to technical direction -Completed on time Business Relations/Sub Contractor Mgmt

-Effective Mgmt -Businesslike correspondence -Responsive to contract requirements -Prompt notification of problems -Reasonable/cooperative -Flexible -Pro-active -Effective SB/SDB Subcontract Program

Unacceptable

(UA)

Non-conformances are jeopardizing the achievement of contract requirements.

Marginal

(M) Overall compliance requires major agency resources to ensure achievement of contract requirements.

Acceptable

(A)

achievement of contract requirements

Very Good

(VG)

Excellent

(E)

M-