ATTACHMENT_05,_Evaluation_Factors_and_Evaluation_Methodology.pdf

HQ042319R0014

Travel Pay System

ATTACHMENT 05, EVALUATION FACTORS AND EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

1.0 GENERAL

1.1 Basis for Selection:

Pursuant to the FAR 15.1, Best Value Continuum, an award shall be made to the offeror whose proposal represents the best value to the Government, price and other factors considered. Best value means “the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the Government’s estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirement” (Ref: FAR 2.101). The evaluation factors for this effort are: Technical Approach, Past Performance, and Price. Trade-off between price and non-price factors shall be utilized to determine the best value. Proposals shall be evaluated based on non-price factors and price. Technical Approach and Past Performance are equal in importance, and when combined, are significantly more important than Price.

2.0 EVALUATION FACTORS

Factor 1 – Technical Approach

For Factor 1, Offerors will describe their technical approach to meeting the requirements described in the Performance Work Statement (RFP Attachment 01) and specifically addresses Sub-factors (1), (2), and (3) below.

Sub-factor (1) Technological Solution

A. Offeror’s proposed approach to provide an end-to-end commercial technological solution with the following capabilities:

i. Create and compute travel vouchers for military and civilian PCS/TDY according to federal travel laws and regulations.

ii. Data input, either auto-transmitted or manual, computations, or the output of completed, accurate vouchers, interfacing files, and reports. (The Offeror should include a description of business functionality, technical structure, and overall complexity).

iii. Process accounting functions such as multiple lines of accounting as well as data elements for disbursing systems to release electronic funds transfer to validated traveler bank accounts.

iv. Produce forms, reports and logs needed for tracking, monitoring, and alerting management.

v. Transmit and receive data from interfacing systems through web service, flat files, direct insert (Java Database Connectivity or Open Database Connectivity), and manual file upload in order to receive and send data timely.

vi. Software holds encryption capabilities as well as database encryption to include data in transit and at rest.

B. The offeror’s proposed approach to deploy the solution on premise or in the MilCloud environment in the following configurations:

i. Stand-alone personal computer non network connected without internet access

ii. Stand-alone personal computer non network connected with internet access

iii. A stand-alone computer within a secured enclave

iv. A computer networked via a mid-tier client-server relationship hosted on a single server

v. A computer networked via a mid-tier client-server relationship hosted on multiple servers

The offeror’s overall approach will be evaluated based on the extent to which it demonstrates sound business practices in regards to system internal controls. The proposal should provide examples inherent to the solution.

Sub-factor (2) Product Support Plan

Offeror’s plan to provide technical support during installation of the solution at each site within the required environment, and for continuous support during exercised option periods. Examples of continuous support should be included in the proposal. Additionally, the Government will evaluate, A. The Offeror’s proposal to provide for mandated solution changes as may be requested by the Government. Examples should include system change request and documented software modifications from the Government.

B. The Offeror’s proposal to provide design, support, changes, maintenance, and archiving of the database structure.

A. The Offeror’s proposal to provide quality software through multi-phased software testing.

The Offeror should provide an example of a recent test plan and the associated actions in each phase.

B. The Offeror’s proposal to maintain product configuration and integrity ensuring product performs as required.

C. The Offeror’s proposal to provide quality user manuals, help screens, training materials, and screen shots. Examples should be provided.

Sub-factor (3) Program Support Plan

Offeror’s proposed customer support approach, to include:

A. Detailed helpdesk function (TIER III).

B. Training on the product.

C. Overall project management support and status updates for the duration of the contract.

D. Ad hoc support as requested by the Government. Supporting examples from an Offeror should include possible scenarios in real-world situations, and then actions or documents provided to customers (e.g. extract scripts for specific data between a data range).

Factor 2 – Past Performance

(A) A list of no more than five (5) of Offeror’s most recent and relevant contracts. Only recent and relevant contracts will be evaluated or considered. Recent means contracts performed or completed within three years from the Proposal due date. For contracts that are currently being performed, the Offeror must have performed at least six months of service for the contract to be considered. Relevant means similar in scope and complexity to the solicited work. Specific information to be reviewed for each contract referenced:

(1) Company/Division name

(2) Description of Service

(3) Contracting Agency/Customer

(4) Contract Number

(5) Contract Dollar Value

(6) Period of Performance

(7) Verified, up-to-date name, address, email and phone number of the contracting officer/POC

(8) Comments regarding compliance with contract terms and conditions

(9) Comments regarding any known performance deemed unacceptable to the customer, or not in accordance with the contract terms and conditions.

(10) Explanation why the project should be considered relevant to the solicited work.

Factor 3 – Price

Firm fixed-price for all the Contract Lines Items Numbers (CLINs) in the RFP, including all Option CLINs, and Estimate for Travel CLINs. The sum of all the CLINs represents the Total Evaluated Price (TEP).

3.0 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

The Government intends to evaluate Proposals and award a firm fixed-price contract based upon the Offeror’s proposed technical approach, past performance, and price based on initial Proposal.

Therefore, the Offeror’s initial Proposal should contain the best terms from a pricing and technical standpoint.

Proposals shall first be evaluated for responsiveness. Responsiveness is met when the proposal adhered to the proposal submission instruction, and the Offeror is a small business, not debarred, suspended or scheduled to be suspended from receiving a Government contract. Debarment and suspension information is found in www.sam.gov. A proposal that is determined non-responsive may be ineligible for an award.

The award shall be made to the responsible Offeror whose Proposal represents the best value to the Government. The Government may reject any or all Proposals if such action is in the public interest; accept a Proposal other than the lowest priced Proposal; and waive informalities and minor irregularities in Proposals received.

3.1. Order of Importance

Factor 1 – Technical Approach is equal to Factor 2 – Past Performance. Combined, Factors 1 and 2 are more important than Factor 3 – Price. However, the importance of price will increase if Offerors are rated and considered essentially equal in terms of non-price factors.

3.2. Definitions

The following evaluation definitions are provided to assist the evaluator(s):

Strength is an aspect of a Proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Weakness means a flaw in the Proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Significant Weakness is a flaw in the Proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Deficiency is a material failure of a Proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a Proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

3.3. Ratings

http://www.sam.gov/

3.3.1. Factor 1 – Technical Approach will be evaluated through an assessment of any strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies, and will receive one rating described in the table below.The evaluator shall select one of the adjectival ratings below that most clearly matches the assessment of the Proposal merit based on the established evaluation criteria. All Proposals shall be assigned one of the below adjectival ratings.

Combined Technical/Risk Ratings:

Rating Description Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable Proposal contains one or more deficiencies, and risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal does not meet this requirement, and thus, is un-awardable.

3.3.2. Factor 2 – Past Performance will be evaluated in the following manner:

The Government shall evaluate recent and relevant performance information on Offerors based on the information retrieved from current and previous contracts provided by the Offeror. The project client shall be contacted for this purpose, and the performance information received shall be evaluated accordingly. Additionally, the Government may seek, and consider in the evaluation, data independently obtained from other government and commercial sources, including databases such as Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) and Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS). Recent contracts mean contracts performed or completed within three years from the Proposal due date. For contracts that are currently being performed, the contractor must have performed at least six months of service for the contract to be considered. Relevant means similar in scope and complexity to the solicited work.

Projects performed by subcontractors or joint venture partners may be considered relevant provided the information submitted by the contractor demonstrates that the subcontractor or joint venture partner played a major role and critical role in successfully performing the project.

Relevant projects performed by the contractor as a prime contractor will be weighed more heavily in the overall evaluation. Contracts performed for the Department of Defense, depending on relevancy, may be considered more significant in the evaluation.

The government reserves the right to give greater consideration to information on those contracts deemed most relevant to the effort described in this solicitation. Relevancy is delineated in the table below.

Relevancy Table

Very Relevant Past or current performance effort involved essentially the same scope and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Past or current performance effort involved much of the scope and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Past or current performance effort involved some of the scope and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Past or current performance effort did not involve any of the scope and complexities this solicitation requires.

The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to allow the government to assess the contractor’s ability to perform the effort described in the solicitation, based on the contractor’s demonstrated recent and relevant performance. The assessment process will result in an overall performance confidence rating in accordance with Table 2 below. Contractors with no relevant past or present performance history shall receive the rating of “Unknown Confidence”.

Table 2 Assessment Description Substantial Confidence

Based on the offeror’s past or current performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform this requirement.

Satisfactory Confidence

Based on the offeror’s past or current performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform this requirement.

Neutral Confidence

No past or current performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence

Based on the offeror’s past or current performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform this requirement.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s past or current performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform this requirement.

3.3.3. Factor 3 – Price

The offeror’s Price Proposal will be evaluated by adding all the prices proposed for all the Contract Lines Items Numbers (CLINs) in the Request for Proposal (RFP), including all Option CLINs. The sum of the CLINs represents the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) and Offerors will be ranked from lowest TEP to highest TEP.

Each responsive Price Proposal will be evaluated for reasonableness and balance, using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404. For a price to be determined reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government, which a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more line items is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques.

Additionally, the Government has included 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services. For evaluation purposes, the Government will consider the price for the six-month Option to Extend Services as equal to half the price of the last option period Proposed. The TEP will include the base period and all options including the Option to Extend Services. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the government to exercise the options.