RFP_Attachment_1_HQ0034-17-R-0171.docx

COMBINED SYNOPSIS/SOLICITATION FOR COMMERCIAL ITEMS

General Information

Contracting Office Address

Washington Headquarters Services, 1225 S. Clarke Street, Ste 1202, Arlington, VA 22202

Description

This is a combined synopsis/solicitation for commercial items prepared in accordance with the format in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 12.6, “Streamlined Procedures for Evaluation and Solicitation for Commercial Items,” as supplemented with additional information included in this notice. Technical Factors 1 & 2 will be evaluated in accordance with FAR subpart 12.602 “Streamlined Evaluation of Offers”. Technical Factor 3 – Past Performance and Factor 4 – Price will be evaluated in accordance with FAR subpart 15.3 and 15.4, respectively. This announcement incorporates provisions and clauses in effect through the Federal Acquisition Circular.

This solicitation is a Request for Proposals (RFP). The solicitation document and incorporated provisions and clauses are those in effect through Federal Acquisition Circular 2005-95 and DFARS change notice 20161222. Solicitation provisions and contract clauses that pertain this contract is contained in RFP Attachments 6. There is no assigned Defense Priorities and Allocations System (DPAS) rating for this requirement.

The associated North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) code for this procurement is 541611 – “Administrative and General Management Consulting”, with a small business size standard of $15.0M. The following documents constitute the complete RFP solicitation and are hereby incorporated:

· RFP Attachment 1_ HQ0034-17-R-0171 (Full Text)

· RFP Attachment 2_Event Planning PWS

· RFP Attachment 3_Price Template

· RFP Attachment 4_Past Performance Questionnaire

· RFP Attachment 5_Small Business Subcontracting Plan

· RFP Attachment 6_RFP Provisions and Clauses

· RFP Attachment 7_DD254, DoD Contract Security Classification Specification

Attachment 1

RFP # HQ0034-17-R-0171

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

Section 1: General RFP Instructions

1. Offerors shall read this document in its entirety as it contains information and procedures regulating how Offerors will structure its proposals in response to this solicitation.

2. This RFP is being competed as unrestricted under NAICS 541611 – “Administrative and General Management Consulting” with a size standard of $15.0M.

3. The Government anticipates awarding one stand-alone contract, as described below, for OUSD(P) Event Planning Support Services to the Offeror whose proposal represents the best value to the Government as set forth in the “Evaluation for Award” section below and as outlined in RFP Attachment 2 – OUSD(P) Event Planning Support Services Performance Work Statement (PWS). The Government may award the contract to other than the Offeror quoting the lowest price or achieving the highest adjectival rating.

4. Each Offeror must submit a response to the solicitation, consistent with the instructions herein, in order to be considered for an award. Incomplete proposal submissions will not be evaluated and, therefore, will not be considered for an award. Submission of these items, as detailed below, will constitute the Offeror’s compliance with the terms and conditions of the RFP solicitation.

5. The Government intends to award the contract without discussions. Therefore, initial submissions should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. Notwithstanding its intent to award without discussions, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions with Offerors, if it deems necessary, and to permit Offerors to revise their proposals.

6. Offerors are advised to closely read the technical proposal instructions, technical evaluation process and evaluation criteria contained in the following sections prior to preparing a technical proposal.

Section 2: Written Proposal Instructions (Technical and Price)

1. Content and Format. Proposals shall consist of two (2) separate volumes and shall be organized as follows:

I. Volume 1 – Technical Proposal as set forth below.

a. Section Header: Security Compliance

b. Section Header: Small Business Participation Plan Compliance

c. Section Header: Management, Staffing and Key Personnel

d. Section Header: Technical Approach

e. Section Header: Past Performance

f. Section Header: Small Business Subcontracting Plan (applicable to large business offerors only) Section Headers (a-f) listed above represent major aspects of the Technical Proposal that should be addressed per the evaluation factors listed in the “Evaluation for Award” section contained herein. Proposal content organized under these headers should be compiled with regard to the technical proposal instructions and page limitations detailed below. Subsections to these Section Headers should be inserted as necessary to organize content.

The following introductory information is required (cover letter format is acceptable) on the first page of Volume I of each Technical Proposal submitted:

· RFP Number & Title,

· Name and address of Offeror,

· Name, telephone number & e-mail address of the main point-of-contact,

· Name of your Contract Administrator,

· Date of submission,

· Name, title, and signature of authorized representative,

· Offeror's DUNS number, and

· Exceptions to RFP/Performance Work Statement (if applicable).

II. Volume 2 – Price Proposal. For purposes of uniformity across all Offeror price submissions, Offerors shall follow the provided pricing template (See Attachment 3 – Pricing template) along with supporting documentation. Price Proposal instructions are detailed in Section 5 – Price Data below. Any submission not using the provided pricing template will be found to be non-compliant and be considered ineligible for award.

2. Submission and File Naming. Offerors shall submit their proposals, for consideration of award, as separate volumes of the total proposal package, as outlined above. All non-price information shall be organized by sections, relative to the evaluation factor structure, and be contained within Volume 1 – Technical Proposal. Offerors shall omit all pricing details from all technical proposal submissions. File attachments for Volumes 1 and 2 shall be named as follows:

· Volume 1 – Technical_Company Name

· Volume 2 – Pricing_Company Name

All other file attachments, submitted as ancillary documents to the proposal package (shall be clearly marked as such and named, at the Offeror’s discretion, based on the document’s content and relevance to the Offeror’s proposal. Each acronym used shall be spelled out in the text the first time it appears in each volume.

3. Questions. All questions regarding this RFP shall be emailed to Kaitlin Locket < kaitlin.f.lockett.civ@mail.mil> no later than July 20, 2017 @ 11:00 AM Eastern Time (ET). Answers to Offeror questions shall be compiled and provided to all Offerors via an Amendment on Federal Business Opportunities website.

4. Proposal Due Date. Submission of vendor proposals in response to this RFP shall be emailed to Kaitlin Lockett < kaitlin.f.lockett.civ@mail.mil>. Responses are due no later than August 16, 2017 @ 10:00 AM ET.

The government will not consider the text of the emails, only the attachments. A single email cannot exceed 10 MBs. Files should be in Microsoft Word, Excel, or Adobe .PDF format; zip files are accepted.

Section 3: Technical Proposal Instructions – General

1. The technical proposal shall consist of a comprehensive written proposal containing six (6) sections: Security Compliance, Small Business Participation Plan Compliance, Management, Staffing & Key Personnel, Technical Approach, Past Performance, and Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

2. The written technical proposal shall be prepared using the following guidelines:

· Offerors shall use standard 8 ½ x 11” size paper with, at minimum, 3/4” margins on all sides. The entire written submission shall use a plain font that is easily decipherable. At minimum, a 12 point font size shall be used for text and a 10 point font size shall be used for any tables and/or graphics. All pages shall include page numbering. Any pages in excess of the specific page limitations for each factor, as outlined below, will not be considered.

· The following items are excluded from the page limitation: Cover page(s), Table of Contents, Resumes, and Samples, Tools and/or Templates submitted as evidence of past experience/past performance demonstrating the methodology that will be used for providing Event Planning Support Services.

· Offerors are strongly encouraged to be succinct, clear, and concise in writing their proposal and adhering to the set page limitations. Bullet-sized or outline formats are welcomed where appropriate.

3. Offerors are advised to supply all information in the sequence and format specified below. The Offeror’s proposal must provide a sufficient basis for a thorough evaluation and provide the information necessary to evaluate the proposal in accordance with the information outlined in the “Evaluation for Award” section below. The Offeror shall organize its proposal, by sections and volumes as stipulated below, in such a manner that the requested information is presented relative to the designated evaluation factor to which it correlates. Any requested information placed outside of the designated factor will not be consider or evaluated under that evaluation factor, regardless to whether it is located elsewhere in the Offeror’s proposal. Offeror shall assume the Government has no prior knowledge of their experience and will base its evaluation on the information presented in the Proposal.

4. In the written technical proposal, Offerors are encouraged to use quantitative and graphical methods to portray facts whenever possible through the use of charts, lists, matrices, diagrams, tabulations, etc. These quantitative and graphical methods are included in the overall page limitation.

5. Pricing data is prohibited in, and shall be omitted from, the written technical proposal. Price proposals must be separately provided in its own volume.

Section 4: Technical Proposal Instructions – Compliance and Evaluation Factors

1. The technical proposals must contain all of the necessary and required information to enable the Government to evaluate the Offeror in accordance with the “Evaluation for Award” section below.

2. For each of the technical factors to be appropriately evaluated, Offerors shall provide the following information respective to the functional areas under which their proposal should be considered. Page limitations for each factor are outlined below under each factor, respectively.

3. Security Compliance. The Offeror’s will affirm that the Offeror has met all of the Security requirements in accordance with Attachment 7_DD254, Contract Security Specification Classification and PWS Section 4.3 by providing approved documentation from the Defense Security Service. Proposals that fail to address, addresses inadequately or fail to meet the Security requirements as established in Attachment 7_DD254, Contract Security Specification Classification and PWS Section 4.3 will be deemed ineligible for award and no further evaluation of the proposal will occur.

*Page Limitation: Offerors shall limit their response to this RFP compliance factor to one (1) single-sided page. DSS supporting documentation does not count against the stipulated page limits for this evaluation factor.

4. Small Business Participation Plan. All offerors, including small businesses, submitting a proposal as a prime contractor for this requirement are required to maintain a minimum of 30% or better of the total contract value of awards to small business concerns throughout the life of the contract. (A small business as a prime contractor can include its own participation in the 30% or better small business participation commitment.) Small Business Participation Plan commitments will be incorporated into the contract and shall be binding on the contractor. A Small Business Participation Plan/commitment is required from all offerors, including companies with commercial plans and comprehensive subcontracting plans. The Small Business Participation Plan/ Commitment shall address the following:

· Extent to which the offeror will utilize small business (SB), small disadvantaged business (SDB), women-owned small business (WOSB), Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUB Zone) small business, veteran-owned small business (VOSB) and service-disabled and veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB);

· Level of commitment to use such firms;

· Types of work small business firms are to perform;

· Signed Statement of commitment to subcontract/utilize small businesses at a minimum of 30% or better of the total contract value in subcontracting to small business concerns (small business primes participation is included in the 30% or better participation);

· The extent of participation of such firms in terms of the value of the total acquisition; and

· Detailed explanations/documentation supporting the proposed participation commitment and percentages.

*Page Limitation: Offerors shall limit their response to this RFP compliance factor to five (5) single-sided pages.

5. Management, Staffing and Key Personnel. The Offeror’s technical proposal must provide a clear and complete approach for addressing Technical Factor 1, Management, Staffing and Key Personnel. Instructions for Technical Factor 1 is detailed below.

Management Approach. Proposal submissions for this evaluation area shall detail a Management Approach that demonstrates the Offeror’s ability to manage the team proposed and the ability to accomplish the requirements in the PWS including a proposed organization structure and any contractor/subcontractor teaming arrangements.

Staffing Plan. Proposal submissions under this technical factor shall include a Staffing Plan. The Staffing Plan shall detail the resource allocation for all tasks identified in the PWS. The Staffing Plan shall show a breakout of all proposed labor, labor categories, and associated hours, by task, for all tasks. The Staffing Plan shall detail how the Offeror proposes to effectively and efficiently meet the Government’s requirement with the proposed staff.

In its proposal, the Offeror must also effectively demonstrate that the proposed level-of-effort (LOE) and labor mix can acceptably perform the PWS tasks and requirements and is reflective of its proposed Management and Technical approach. Note: The Government will compare the proposed LOE, labor mix, and any explanations for innovative approaches to the current/historical LOE provided in this RFP and perform an analysis. Based on the results of the analysis, an overall determination of whether the proposed LOE is sufficient to perform the work will be made.

Key Personnel: Offerors shall provide a resume for each of the proposed Key Personnel. Offerors shall map all proposed labor categories to the key positions requested in the PWS. Proposed personnel must meet all RFP requirements for their position.

The resume shall demonstrate that the individual possesses the stated years of experience and other technical expertise/education requirements as outlined in the PWS. Resumes of any proposed personnel not currently employed by the Offeror, or a subcontractor or teaming partner of the Offeror, must contain a statement signed by the individual that the use of their resume for this solicitation is authorized. Offerors that propose Key Personnel who do not meet the requirements established in Section 4.1 of the PWS shall receive a rating of “Unacceptable” for Technical Factor 1.

Resumes shall contain the following information:

· Name

· Project assignment

· Name of firm with which associated

· Years of experience with current firm and other firms identified

· Education to include the accredited college or university name, degree(s) and specialization

· Currency, quality and depth of experience in working on similar projects;

· Ability to meet security requirements of PWS Section 4.1;

· Percentage of time available to the contract;

· Experience and qualifications relevant to the contract; and

· Location of the office to which this individual will be permanently assigned during the period of performance of the contract.

· Resumes of any proposed personnel not currently employed by the Offeror, or a subcontractor of the Offeror, must contain a statement signed by the individual that the use of their resume for this solicitation is authorized.

*Page Limitation: Offerors shall limit its Management, Staffing, and Key Personnel response to Twenty (20) single-sided pages. Offerors shall limit its Key Personnel resume response(s) to three (3) single-sided pages. The signed Letter of Commitment does not count against the overall page limit for Resumes. Resumes do not count against the stipulated page limits for this evaluation factor.

6. Technical Approach. For Technical Factor 2, Technical Approach, the Offeror’s technical proposal must contain a clear, concise, and complete description of the Offeror’s proposed technical approach to accomplishing the requirement outlined in the PWS. Technical responses shall contain sufficient content for the Government to determine whether an Offeror understands and has experience with the PWS requirements. To demonstrate understanding, the Offeror shall propose sound, practical, and feasible methods to accomplish all tasks identified in the PWS, including but not limited to, those tasks listed in PWS Section 3.0. In addition, proposal submissions for this technical factor shall include the offeror’s Phase-In plan to conduct a smooth transition not to exceed a ten days overlap. Demonstrated understanding and experience also includes whether the Offeror demonstrates a complete understanding of the detailed service requirements involved when providing Event Planning Support Services, understanding of the deliverables required, logistics and any potential issues that may be encountered on the project. Offerors are cautioned against using such phrases as “standard procedures will be employed” or “well-known techniques will be used” in their proposals.

*Page Limitation: Offerors shall limit its Technical Approach response(s) to Fifteen (15) single-sided pages.

7. Past Performance. Instructions for addressing Technical Factor 3, Past Performance, are detailed below.

· To satisfy minimum requirements, Offerors shall address the following past performance areas:

1. Demonstrate its experience in providing services similar in size, complexity, and scope to this procurement by identifying the most relevant projects completed or currently active during the past three (3) years (RFP Attachment 4_Past Performance Questionnaire) with a duration of six months or more.

2. Demonstrate collective corporate experience in managing at least 150 events per year from two to 250 attendees.

3. Demonstrate collective corporate experience in working with US and foreign delegations, US and Diplomatic protocol, and military customs and courtesies.

· The work identified to address the areas above may be either where the Offeror performed as the prime contractor or performed under a teaming arrangement as a subcontractor. Offerors shall provide the information outlined in RFP Attachment 4_Past Performance Quesionnaire for the cited work. Work Experience cited may include those arrangements entered into with Federal, State or local governments or commercial businesses, which are of similar scope, magnitude, relevance, and complexity to the requirement described in the Event Planning Support Services PWS (RFP Attachment 2).

· Offerors are instructed to provide the following for all work cited:

· Name of the entity for whom the services were provided (agency, firm, etc.);

· Description of services provided, to include magnitude, scope and responsibilities; and include details on performance that led to positive end results;

· Reference Point of Contact (POC) information, to include name, phone number, and email address

· In addition to the information requested above, Past Performance information may be obtained from any other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; the Defense Contract Management Agency; and interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Fee Determining Officials.

*Page Limitation: There are no page limitations relative to Technical Factor 3 – Past Performance.

8. Small Business Subcontracting Plan (applicable to Large Business Offerors Only): Offerors shall submit a small business subcontracting plan satisfying the requirements in FAR 52.219-9, Alt II and DFARS 252.219-7003. In addition to the requirements of FAR clause 52.219-9 Alt II, the Small Business Subcontracting Plan shall address affirmatively all other small business subcontracting requirements in FAR Part 19.7. The Small Business Subcontracting Plan shall be submitted separately from the Small Business Participation Plan/Commitment required below, that applies to both small and other than small businesses. The Small Business Subcontracting Plan is not a requirement for evaluation in source selection, but rather, a requirement for basis of award to an other than small business. The small business subcontracting plan will be included with the offer in Volume I. The Small Business Participation Plan and a final small business subcontracting plan shall be incorporated into the resulting contract. For purposes of uniformity across all Offeror Small Business Subcontracting Plans, Offerors shall follow the provided Small Business Subcontracting Plan template (see Attachment 5_Small Business Subcontracting Plan).

Section 5: Price Data Instructions

1. Pricing data shall be segregated from the Offeror’s technical proposal. Volume 2 - Pricing data shall contain only the information requested in this section and shall not be used as an extension of the technical proposal.

2. Offerors shall submit pricing data in a manner consistent with the information detailed below. Microsoft Excel and Microsoft Word are acceptable formats for submitting Volume 2 price data. Offerors shall include any formulas and factors used in calculating the pricing data. Offerors shall name the file “Volume 2 – Pricing_Company Name” in accordance with instructions listed above.

*Page Limitation: There is no page limitation for the submission of the pricing data. In addition to the requisite price information, Offerors can provide any substantiating price-related information it deems necessary. Substantiating price-related information is optional and not a requirement.

3. The Period of Performance for this contract will be five (5) years. This will include one (1) twelve-month base period and four (4) twelve-month option periods. Pricing data shall be submitted to cover the entire Period of Performance.

4. Contract Line Item Number Pricing: Offerors shall use the following price templates for submission of requested pricing data relative to Event Planning Support Services requirement.

· For CLINs 0001, 1001, 2001, 3001, and 4001, Offerors shall prepare a Firm-Fixed-Price proposal for twelve (12) month base period and four (12) month option periods. For purposes of uniformity across all Offeror price submissions, Offerors shall follow the provided pricing template (see Attachment 3 – Pricing Template) along with supporting documentation. Offerors shall provide an overall pricing summary that lists labor categories; total Full Time Equivalents (FTEs), total hours, labor hourly rates, total price, and any other price build-up for the Base Period and Option Periods. Additionally, Offerors shall include a CLIN pricing summary table, detailing unit prices, Contract Line Item Number(s) CLIN(s) total amounts, and a summary of all contract performance periods detailing the overall total proposed price of the contract. The proposal shall contain burdened labor rates for all labor categories proposed under the Firm-Fixed Price portions of the proposal.

· For CLINs 0002, 1002, 2002, 3002, and 4002, Offerors shall prepare a Time-and-Materials proposal for a per page unit price for printing services for a twelve (12) month base period and four (12) month option periods. For purposes of uniformity across all Offerors price submissions, Offerors shall follow the provided pricing template (see Attachment 3 – Pricing Template) along with supporting documentation. For CLINs 0002, 1002, 2002, 3002, and 4002 will be issued on a not-to-exceed basis. However, for evaluation purposes only, the Offeror shall provide a unit price for ten trip books at 120 pages each with standard 3” binders.

· For CLINs 0003, 1003, 2003, 3003, and 4003, the Offeror shall not provide any price information as it will be ordered on a not-to-exceed basis.

· All pricing shall be provided in the attached spreadsheet format compatible with Microsoft Excel version 2003 or 2007 or higher.

EVALUATION FOR AWARD

Section 6: Basis for Award

1. The anticipated single-award contract will be awarded to the Offeror(s) whose proposal conforms to the RFP requirements and represents the best value to the Government, as determined by the evaluation criteria described herein, in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) 15.101-1. Best value will be based on a detailed evaluation of all factors outlined below. Evaluation will be conducted and selection will be made in accordance with the guidelines provided in the FAR, Defense FAR Supplement (DFARS), and this RFP.

Section 7: Evaluation Process

1. The Government intends to award to the Offeror(s) whose proposal(s) represents the best value and is the most advantageous to the Government. In determining the best value, the Government may, in accordance with FAR 15.101-1, employ a tradeoff process allowing for an award to other than the lowest priced Offeror or other than the highest technical rated offer.

2. The evaluation process shall consist of the following steps:

Phase 1: Compliance Factor:

A. Security Requirements: The Proposal will be reviewed to determine whether the prime Offeror has a verifiable Security Clearance in accordance with Attachment 7_DD254, Contract Security Specification Classification and PWS Section 4.3. If this information cannot be verified in the proposal, the proposal will be deemed ineligible for award and no further evaluation will occur.

B. Small Business Participation Plan: All Offerors (both large and small businesses) will be reviewed on the level of small business commitment that they demonstrate for the proposed contract in their small business participation plan. The Small Business Participation Plan will be evaluated on a pass/fail basis. Specifically, the Government will review:

· Extent to which the Offeror meets or exceeds the mandatory minimum of 30% of the total contract value in small business participation;

· Extent to which the offeror will utilize small business (SB), small disadvantaged business (SDB), women-owned small business (WOSB), Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUB Zone) small business, veteran-owned small business (VOSB) and service-disabled and veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB); and

· Commitment to use such firms (formal agreements/level of intent).

If the Small Business Participation Plan is evaluated as “Fail”, then the proposal will be deemed ineligible for award and no further evaluation will occur. Phase 2: Evaluation Factors

STEP 1: Initially, all Offeror responses will be evaluated for compliance with Security Requirements detailed, respectively, in Attachment 7_DD254, Contract Security Specification Classification and PWS Section 4.3. If found compliant under Phase 1A Security Compliance Factor, the Offeror’s Phase 1B Compliance Factor, Small Business Participation Plan will be evaluated on a Pass/Fail basis.

STEP 2: If found compliant under the Phase 1B Compliance Factor, the Offeror’s Volume 1 technical proposal(s) will be evaluated under Technical Factor 1_Management, Staffing & Key Personnel using the “Technical Capability Performance Evaluation Ratings and Definitions” listed in Section 9 below.

STEP 3: If the Offeror’s Technical Factor 1_ Management, Staffing & Key Personnel Technical Rating is “Acceptable” or higher, then the Offeror’s Technical Factor 3_Technical Approach will be evaluated using the Technical Capability Performance Evaluation Ratings.

STEP 4: If the Offeror’s Technical Factor 2_Technical Approach Technical Rating is “Acceptable” or higher, then the Offeror’s Technical Factor 3_Past Performance will be evaluated using the Past Performance Evaluation Ratings.

STEP 5: If the Offeror’s Compliance Factors 1A or 1B are rated as fail and/or Technical Factor 1_Management Approach, Staffing & Key Personnel, Technical Factor 2_Technical Approach is rated as “Marginal” or “Unacceptable” and/or Technical Factor 3_Past Performance is rated as “No Confidence”, then the price will not be evaluated.

STEP 6: For the apparent awardee only (applicable to large businesses only), the Offeror’s Small Business Subcontracting Plan will be reviewed for acceptability. If found to be unacceptable, the proposal will be considerable unawardable and ineligible for award.

The Technical Factors for Management, Staffing & Key Personnel, Technical Approach and Past Performance are of equal importance. The Technical Factors for Management, Staffing & Key Personnel, Technical Approach and Past Performance when combined, are more important than the Price Factor. Price will be increasingly more important as non-price evaluation factors become increasingly equal.

Section 8: Evaluation Factors

Technical Factor 1 _ Management, Staffing and Key Personnel

a) The extent to which the proposed Management, Staffing and Key Personnel response demonstrate that the proposed Key Personnel has the stated years of experience and other relevant/desired technical expertise noted in Section 4.1 of the PWS.

b) The extent to which the proposed Management, Staffing, and Key Personnel response demonstrates that 100% of the proposed Key Personnel have the active required clearances as noted in Section 4.1 of the PWS.

c) The extent to which the proposed Management, Staffing and Key Personnel response demonstrates how the Offeror intends to successfully manage the proposed team and how it intends to effectively and efficiently use employees to cover all task areas noted in the PWS.

d) The extent to which the Offeror's staffing plan ensures that the Offeror can properly perform the tasks of the PWS. The Government will also evaluate the proposal to ensure that its proposed labor mix and level-of-effort are reflect of its proposed Management and Technical Approach.

e) The extent to which the Offeror's proposed technical approach demonstrates a strategy for minimizing employee turnover, providing stability and mitigating transition risks in order to avoid disruptions in service.

Receipt of a “Marginal” or “Unacceptable” rating for Technical Evaluation Factor 1 will render the proposal unawardable and the Offeror will be considered ineligible for award and not evaluated further.

Technical Factor 2 _Technical Approach

The Technical Approach will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the Offeror demonstrates understanding of the Event Planning Support Services requirements. Any proposed approach must reflect a demonstrated understanding of the requirements, and a sound, practical, and feasible method to accomplish all tasks, and proposes acceptable methods for ensuring the quality of deliverables.

Specifically, the Government will evaluate:

2a) The extent to which the Offeror’s proposed Technical Approach demonstrates a complete understanding and feasibility of the requirement tasks, deliverables, and logistical details relating to the PWS, including addressing its understanding of potential issues that may be encountered and mitigation examples.

Receipt of a “Marginal” or “Unacceptable” rating for Technical Evaluation Factor 2 will render the proposal unawardable and the Offeror will be considered ineligible for award and not evaluated further.

Technical Factor 3_Past Performance

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror demonstrates quality performance of past work identified. The information provided should include the ability to provide the requested services of the same magnitude and complexity of this procurement. The Past Performance evaluation considers each Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying services that meet the PWS requirements. The currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in the contractor’s performance are considered. These are combined to establish one performance confidence assessment rating for each Offeror. With respect to relevancy, Past Performance of greater relevancy will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the Past Performance confidence assessment than Past Performance of lesser, provided both have the same past performance assessment rating.

Offerors should submit one past performance questionnaire (RFP Attachment 4) for each of the areas below. One questionnaire may address more than one area identified below.

Each project provided will be assessed for recency and assigned a relevancy rating ranging from “Very Relevant” to “Not Relevant”. The Government will determine how well the contractor performed on the contracts and past performance assessment ratings ranging from “Outstanding” to “Marginal” (as defined below) will be assigned to each project. Lastly, the combination of the evaluation of recency, relevancy, performance assessments for the projects will then result in an overall performance “Confidence” rating.

Offerors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and will be rated “Unknown Confidence” on Factor 3 – Past Performance. Receipt of a “No Confidence” rating for Technical Evaluation Factor 3 will render the proposal unawardable and the Offeror will be considered ineligible for award and not evaluated further.

Factor 4_Price

The Government will evaluate the total expected price of performing this work, in accordance with FAR 15.4 and the process stipulated below.

Price will be evaluated independent of technical evaluations. The Offeror’s price will be evaluated to determine if it is fair and reasonable. Additionally, award will further be contingent upon determinations of contractor responsibility. The Government will determine contractor responsibility through the System of Award Management (SAM) and Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS). In order for an Offeror to be considered eligible for award, the Offeror shall have an active record with no exclusions in SAM and shall not have any negative records on FAPIIS. Price will not be rated adjectivally, but will be evaluated based on a comprehensive review. Price volumes will be evaluated with respect to accuracy and completeness based on information submitted in the Offeror’s written submission. This process will involve verification that figures are correctly calculated, prices are presented in the requested format, and that proposed rates, and any applicable discounts, are accurate. Additionally, the Government may utilize one or more of the following methods to evaluate price:

· Review of the proposed level-of-effort and associated pricing;

· Comparison to other proposals received;

· Comparison and/or analysis based on Independent Government Cost Estimate; or Comparison of proposed prices with prices obtained through market research for the same or similar items.

As part of the price evaluation, the Government will calculate an overall evaluated price. The overall evaluated price will be calculated by completing the following steps:

STEP 1: CLINs 0001, 1001, 2001, 3001, and 4001 (FFP): The firm-fixed-price portions will be factored into the total evaluate price by multiplying the proposed labor rate by proposed labor hours for each labor category for the 12-month base and four 12-month options, using the provided Attachment 3 - Pricing Template.

STEP 2: CLINs 0002, 1002, 2002, 3002, and 4002 (T&M): The Time and Materials portion will be factored into the total evaluated price by multiplying the proposed per page unit price by 10 trip books at 120 pages each for the 12-month base and four 12-month options using the provided Attachment 3 - Pricing Template.

STEP 3: CLINs 0003, 1003, 2003, 3003, and 4003 (T&M): The travel CLINs will be factored into the total evaluate price using the not-to-exceed amount as provided in Attachment 3 – Pricing Template.

STEP 4: The Government will factor into the total evaluated price the optional six-month extension of services (FAR Clause 52.217-8), utilizing the Offeror’s total calculated price for Option Period 4, by adding in one half of the total of the CLIN prices for FFP CLIN 4001, T&M CLIN 4002, and T&M CLIN 4003.

Thus, for the purpose of evaluation under this RFQ, the Offeror's total evaluated price will include one 12-month base period, four 12-month option periods and one six-month optional extension of services period. The Offeror shall not price this optional six-month extension of services period in its quote. Evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the options.

Note: Price will not be evaluated for an Offeror receiving an adjectival rating of “Marginal” or “Unacceptable” for Technical Factor 1 or 2 or a “No Confidence” rating for Technical Factor 3. A rating of Marginal, Unacceptable, or No Confidence will render the proposal(s) unawardable and the Offeror ineligible for award without further evaluation.

Small Business Subcontracting Plan

Applicable to Apparent Large Business Awardee Only: The Small Business Subcontracting Plan will only be evaluated for the apparent Large Business Awardee on a pass/fail basis. Specifically, the Government will review:

· Does Small Business Subcontracting Plan mirrors the submitted Small Business Participation Plan?

· Does the Offeror address all of the requirements in accordance with FAR 52.219-9, Alt II, DFARS 252.219-7003, and FAR 19.7?

Note: A rating of Fail will render the proposal(s) unawardable and the Offeror ineligible for award.

Section 9: Technical Capability Performance Evaluation Ratings and Definitions

1. The Offeror’s technical solution will be rated separately from the risk associated with its proposed approach. The technical rating evaluates the quality of the Offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirement. The following adjectival rating scale will be utilized to evaluate the Offeror’s Volume 1 – Technical Proposal relative to Technical Factor 1 _ Management, Staffing, and Key Personnel and Technical Factor 2 _Technical Approach:

more deficiencies and is unawardable.

2. Assessment of technical risk, which is manifested by the identification of weakness(es), considers potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and/or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. The following adjectival rating scale will be utilized to evaluate the Offeror’s Volume 1 – Technical Proposal relative to technical risk affiliated with Technical Factor 1 _ Management, Staffing, and Key Personnel and Technical Factor 2 _Technical Approach:

degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

3. The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the Offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. Currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor’s performance will be considered. These are combined to establish one performance confidence assessment rating for each Offeror. With regard to relevancy, the following adjectival rating scale will be utilized to evaluate the Offeror’s Volume 1 – Technical Proposal relative to Technical Factor 3_Past Performance:

4. With regard to Past Performance Assessment, the following adjectival rating scale will be utilized to evaluate the Offeror’s Volume 1 – Technical Proposal relative to Technical Factor 3_Past Performance.

5. With regard to Confidence, the following adjectival rating scale will be utilized to evaluate the Offeror’s Volume 1 – Technical Proposal relative to Technical Factor 3_Past Performance

successfully perform the required effort.

Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Government has a low expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Government has no expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Section 10: WHS/AD Contracting Points of Contact

1. Contracting Officer: Kaitlin Lockett, (703) 545–3357, kaitlin.f.lockett.civ@mail.mil