A23 - Attachment A RFP Instructions and Evaluation 2.13.24.docx

Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors- Commercial Items

Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) is issuing a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the services specified in the attached Performance Work Statement (PWS). Proposal evaluation will be conducted in accordance with FAR Subpart 15.3, with the intention to award a contract to one vendor who demonstrates the ability to provide the best value to the Government. Proposals must be received by email to Contract Specialist, Enrique Ruiz-Perez, Ruiz Perez, enrique.o.ruizperez.civ@mail.mil and the Contracting Officer, Emily Frum, at Emily.j.frum.civ@mail.mil by 3 p.m. (ET), 03/24/2024.

Questions regarding this solicitation are due to the Contracting Officer by 12 p.m. (ET), 02/09/2024. Questions will be answered at the discretion of the Contracting Officer.

1. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS:

1.1 Proposals shall include two attachments and shall be submitted in one email. The first attachment represents the vendor’s response to Non-Price Factors 1 and 2. The second attachment represents the vendor’s Price Proposal, Factor 3. The first page of each attachment shall include the RFP number, date of submittal, the vendor’s name, address, CAGE code, POC name, phone, and email. Vendors may use the body of their email as a cover letter. Limit the cover letter to 1 page.

1.2. Text shall be single-spaced, on 8 1/2 x 11-inch paper, with minimum one-inch margins on all sides and minimum 12-point font. Text and graphics shall be in a format readable by Adobe PDF, Microsoft Word, PowerPoint or Excel. Note: There is a 15MB limit for email submissions.

1.3. Page Limitations. Any pages in excess of the page limitations below will not be considered.

Factor 1 – Technical Approach

20 pages

1.4 Estimated Level of Effort. Total anticipated hours is approximately 88,320 total hours for the Base plus option periods

Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 Evaluation – Commercial Items:

Factor 1 – Technical Approach The offer shall demonstrate a clear and concise technical approach to accomplish each area of the PWS. The offer shall include all the information required by this solicitation in sufficient detail for effective evaluation. The proposal should not simply rephrase or restate the Government’s requirements, but shall provide convincing rationale to address how the offeror intends to meet the requirements.

The Technical Evaluation will include an examination of offeror’s proposal to determine the following:

1. The offeror demonstrates capability to develop and execute innovative and cost effective techniques to accomplish performance objectives, address potential problems, create viable solutions, and integrate new technology and advanced processes.

2. Whether the offeror has demonstrated an understanding of the work to be performed, including competent and thorough knowledge of the requirement(s) as stated in the PWS, as well as the systems and processes, and can illustrate any actions and sequential steps required to meet all objectives. The government will evaluate the vendor’s ability to provide, at a minimum:

a. An end-to-end commercial technological solution with the ability to create and compute travel vouchers for military and civilian PCS/TDY, evacuation, and travel advances according to Federal Travel Regulations (FTR) and Joint Travel Regulations (JTR). Solution shall include proper data input, either auto-transmitted or manual, computations, and the output of completed, accurate vouchers, interfacing files, and reports.

b. Forms, including necessary quarterly and annual tax forms (such as W2s, W2c, 941, 941X, magnetic media files), scheduled and ad-hoc reports and queries, and logs needed for tracking, monitoring, and alerting management.

c. 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.

d. Timely and accurate data sent to and from interfacing systems, such as SmartVoucher and DFAS disbursing systems, through web service, flat files, direct insert (Java Database Connectivity or Open Database Connectivity), and manual file upload.

e. Standardization with the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (OUSD) Treasury Disbursing and Collections Initiative (Treasury Direct Disbursing) and Standard Financial Information Structure (SFIS) compliance as well as Standard Line of Accounting (SLOA).

f. A deployable solution with the ability to be hosted 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 that uses terminal and database servers

v. Cloud platform

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

h. Plans demonstrating sound business practices in regards to system internal controls, Security Technical Implementation Guide (STIG) policies, and Risk Managed Framework (RMF), to include proof.

3. Program/Product Support The Government will evaluate the vendor’s ability to provide quality support during installation, testing, and implementation of the program/product, as well as during exercised option periods to meet all objectives as stated in the PWS. This support includes but is not limited to:

a. Programmed mandated rule/rate changes, system change requests, software error correction, and database recovery/conversions. Deliverables include evidence of the software’s development lifecycle/release milestones, including, but not limited to, implemented test discrepancy reports (TDR), system change requests (SCRs), and software enhancements.

b. Design, support, changes, maintenance, and archiving of the database structure. Deliverables include, but not limited to, a data dictionary, database definitions and schemas, and evidence of encryption methods.

c. Multi-phased software testing. Deliverables include, but are not limited to, test plans, test scripts, and proof of test.

d. Product configuration and integrity ensuring product performs as required and calculates claims accurately for various types of travel including military (Active, Reserve, and Guard) and civilian permanent change of station (PCS)/permanent duty travel (PDT), Relocation Income Tax Allowance (RITA), personally procured moves (PPM), temporary change of station (TCS), contingency operations, evacuation entitlements, 1164 local travel, Extended TDY Tax Reimbursement Allowance (ETTRA), casualty/Wounded Warrior travel, funeral travel, invitational travel, and temporary duty (TDY). Deliverables include, but not limited to, claim summaries and travel voucher computation examples.

e. Instructional materials and help tools to use with the software and each program update that accurately depict system operation. Deliverables include, but are not limited to, user manual, training materials, help screen(s), installation guide/system version documentation (SVD).

f. System implementation plan identifying the action steps and milestones required to implement the system at DFAS and with the DoD customers. Deliverables include, but not limited to, a project schedule.

g. Product and customer support via telephone and/or on-site to designated Government staff to include:

i. Tier 2 and Tier 3 helpdesk customer support during business hours (8:00 am – 5:00 pm Eastern Standard Time).

ii. On-site and remote product training and education (if necessary) covering product configuration and administration.

iii. Additional support as requested by DFAS. Requests include, but not limited to, system documentation, data extract scripts, ad-hoc system reports, meeting attendance, and authenticated system-verified calculations.

Factor 2 – Past Performance

1. Provide a list of no more than three (3) of your 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 currently being performed, the vendor must have performed at least six months of service for the contract to be considered. Relevant means similar in magnitude, scope and complexity to the solicited work. Furnish the following information 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 referenced contract is relevant to the solicited work.

2. Questionnaires. Attached to the solicitation is a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ). Vendors are required to send the Questionnaire to each contracting officer or point of contact (POC) with knowledge of the vendor’s performance for each contract referenced (unless a past performance record is already available in CPARS for the reference contract). The contracting officer/POC should be instructed to send the Questionnaire directly to the person identified on the first page of the Instructions no later than the proposal due date specified. The vendor is solely responsible for ensuring that Questionnaires are received by the Government no later than the proposal due date. Questionnaires received after the solicitation due date will not be considered in the evaluation.

a. Subcontractor Consent: Past performance information pertaining to a subcontractor cannot be disclosed to the prime contractor or the government without the subcontractor’s consent. Provide a letter, as an additional Attachment, from each subcontractor that will perform significant aspects of this requirement, consenting to the release of their past performance information to the prime contractor and government. Consent letters do not count toward page limitations.

Factor 3– Price As specified in this solicitation (see attached pricing worksheet) provide pricing information for the base period and option periods.

3.0 EVALUATION

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a Firm Fixed-Price contract based on the vendor’s proposed technical approach, past performance and price based on initial proposal. Time and Material CLINs are for travel only. Therefore, the vendor’s initial proposal should contain the best terms from a pricing and technical standpoint.

The award will be issued 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; and waive informalities and minor irregularities in proposals received. The Government reserves the right to issue award without discussions.

a. Clarifications are limited exchanges between the Government and offerors and may occur when award without discussions is contemplated. Clarifications provide the offeror the opportunity to clarify certain aspects of proposals; minor clerical errors or adverse past performance the offeror has not had the opportunity to respond to. Clarifications do not allow for material proposal revisions for technical or cost elements.

b. Communications may be conducted to enhance Government understanding of proposals; allow reasonable interpretation of the proposal; or facilitate the Government’s evaluation process. Such communications shall not be used to cure proposal deficiencies or material omissions, materially alter the technical or cost elements of the proposal, and/or otherwise revise the proposal.

3.1 Order of Importance

The Government will evaluate proposal in the following order of importance:

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

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

Deficiency: 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.

Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. A significant weakness in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Strength: An aspect of an offeror’s proposal with merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the advantage of the Government during contract performance. A significant strength is an aspect of an offeror’s proposal with appreciable merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the considerable advantage of the Government during contract performance.

3.3 Ratings

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.

Adjectival Rating

Description

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

Of the offers, having passed the technical evaluation, the Government will begin evaluating Past Performance. The Government shall evaluate recent and relevant performance information on vendors based on the contracts provided by the vendor and Questionnaires received. The Government may seek, and consider in the evaluation, data independently obtained from other government and commercial sources, including databases such as CPARS. Recent means contracts performed or completed within three years from the solicitation 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 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, see Table below:

Relevancy Table

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 present and past performance. The assessment process will result in an overall performance confidence rating in accordance with Table 2. Where individual reference contracts are deemed “not relevant,” those reference contracts will not be considered in assigning a confidence rating of substantial, satisfactory, limited, or no confidence. Proposals with no recent past performance history or a past performance history that is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment can reasonably be assigned their confidence assessment shall receive the rating of “Neutral Confidence.”

The government reserves the right to rate offerors with a Substantial and Satisfactory rating more favorably than those with a Neutral Confidence.

Table 2: Past Performance Confidence Ratings

Factor 3 – Price Price reasonableness determinations will be in accordance with FAR Subpart 15.402.

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 5th option proposed price. The government plans to evaluate the total evaluated price which will include the base period and all options including the Option to Extend Services. Evaluation of options will not obligate the government to exercise the options.