INSTRUCTIONS_TO_OFFERORS.docx

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

1.0 SOLICITATION RESPONSE REQUIREMENT

1.1 Proposal Submittal Instructions: The Department of Homeland Security/Customs and Border Protection (DHS/CBP) is releasing this solicitation electronically only. This electronic version of the Request for Proposal (RFP) is the official version for this acquisition. No hard copy of this solicitation will be issued. All applicable amendments to this solicitation will be transmitted electronically.

PLEASE NOTE: Although CBP is issuing this solicitation electronically, proposals shall only be submitted as described herein.

Proposals shall be submitted via hard copy and electronically to Jonathan Diggs (jonathan.w.diggs@cbp.dhs.gov) and Kerri Bishop (kerri.a.bishop@cbp.dhs.gov) at the following address Not Later Than 5:00 PM EDT on 09 September 2016:

U.S. Department of Homeland Security/Customs and Border Protection Procurement Directorate-Suite 1355, Mailstop 1107 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20229 It is the responsibility of the Offeror to confirm and verify receipt of their proposal. Any proposal received after the date and time specified for receipt may be rejected and not considered for award.

1.2 Questions: The cut-off date for all questions is 31 August 2016 at 5:00 PM EDT. Offerors are requested to email all questions to Jonathan Diggs at jonathan.w.diggs@cbp.dhs.gov and Kerri Bishop at kerri.a.bishop@cbp.dhs.gov. Responses to all questions will be transmitted through www.fbo.gov. In certain cases, questions may result in the issue of an amendment to the RFP. No telephonic requests will be entertained.

1.3 Format: Contractors are advised to take proper steps to ensure timely receipt of their response. It is the sole responsibility of the contractor to ensure that the electronic files submitted are virus free and can be opened and read by the Government. If the electronic files cannot be opened, and read by the Government, the Contractor shall have one business day after notification of the same, to correct the deficiency. After that time, if the electronic files cannot be opened and read by the Government, the Contractor may be considered non-responsive and may be rejected and not evaluated further. For a contractor’s response to be considered timely, electronic copies of the response must be received by the Government by the due date/time stated herein. Proposals shall be submitted as follows:

1.3.1 Text: Text shall be at least single-spaced, printable on 8 ½ x 11 in paper, with a minimum one-inch margin all around. Pages shall be numbered consecutively. Pages submitted in excess of the page limitations stated throughout this document will be removed and not evaluated.

1.3.2 Font Size: Print shall be of minimum 12 point font size spacing. Bolding, underlining, and italics may be used to identify topic demarcations or points of emphasis. Graphic presentations, including tables, while not subject to the same font size and spacing requirements, shall have spacing and text that is easily readable.

1.3.3 Proposal Organization and Labeling: Proposals shall be submitted in four (4) volumes. Volume 1 shall include the Offeror’s Technical Approach (Subfactor A: Overall Technical Approach and Subfactor B: Technical Experience). Volume 2 shall include the Offeror’s Overall Management Approach, Staffing Approach, and Methodology. Volume 3 shall include the Offeror’s Past Performance. Volume 4 shall include the Offeror’s price and shall be in a separate attachment. Volume 4 shall also include a completed pricing schedule (CLIN Structure Attachment and Line Item Detail Attachment), as provided in the Contracts Attachments list. A cover sheet shall be used for each attachment, clearly marked as to the RFP identification, date of submittal, acknowledgement of any amendments, the Offeror’s name, address, Taxpayer ID number, CAGE code, DUNS Number, and the Offeror’s POC name, phone number, and email. The cover sheet shall not count against any page limitations.

1.3.4 Pricing Data: Any and all pricing information shall only appear in the Price Volume.

1.3.5 Proposal Volume Requirements: Proposals submitted in response to this solicitation shall be formatted as follows and furnished in the number of copies stated herein:

-Subfactor A: Overall Technical Approach Subfactor B: Technical Experience

1.4 General Information: For proposal purposes, Offerors should assume a start date of 13 February 2017.

1.5 Assumptions, Conditions, or Exceptions: Offerors must submit, under separate cover, all (if any) assumptions, conditions, or exceptions with any of the terms and conditions of this solicitation. If not noted in this section of your proposal. If not noted in this section of your proposal, it will be assumed that the Offeror proposes no assumptions for award and agrees to comply with all of the terms and conditions as set forth herein.

2.0 EVALUATION FACTORS

Factor 1: Technical Approach (Non-Price) Subfactor A is more important than Subfactor B within the Technical Approach Evaluation. Proposal requirements for the Technical Factor I include the following:

A. Sub factor A: Overall Technical Approach (Non-Price) The Offeror shall submit their technical approach to accomplish the requirements specified in the Performance Work Statement (PWS). The Offeror shall identify any subcontractors/teaming members that they propose utilizing for the subject effort including their particular area of expertise thus demonstrating the depth of the Offeror’s understanding of the requirements set forth in the Performance Work Statement. Within the page limitation of the written technical approach, the Offeror shall provide sufficient data for the Government to make an accurate evaluation of their capability to meet the requirements of the Performance Work Statement. The Offeror shall describe its technical understanding and approach to performing all objectives as delineated in the Performance Work Statement. The Offeror shall include the mission capabilities of its team members and other intended subcontractors. In addition, the contractor shall provide a comprehensive preliminary schedule for Preventive Maintenance for the base contract year.

B. Sub factor B: Technical Experience (Non-Price) The Offeror shall, at a minimum, provide sufficient detail that demonstrates its depth and breadth of experience successfully completing the tasks specified in the Government Performance Work Statement. This sub-factor focuses on experience of the Offeror to include Project/Program Management and all other areas related to the Performance Work Statement. The Offeror shall describe the experience and qualifications of all key personnel (including the program manager) and senior technical experts for all areas. The Offeror shall provide specific examples detailing their experience. The Offeror shall demonstrate experience in innovative approaches and problem resolution. Only the offeror’s experience, as a prime contractor or subcontractor, will be considered relevant.

Factor 2: Overall Management Approach, Staffing Approach, and Methodology (Non-Price) The Offeror shall furnish a written description of the proposed staffing approach to implement, manage, and administer tasks similar in size, scope, and complexity to the ones specified in the Performance Work Statement. The staffing approach shall clearly describe the full range of staffing resources to include but not limited to: resource planning processes/procedures, management methods, and other associated details that ensure sufficient qualified resources are recruited, staffed, and retained to meet the Government’s requirements. Each Offeror shall provide its proposed approach for delivering high quality support services as defined in the PWS. This section shall address project management, providing qualified personnel, communications, and approach to overall staffing, resumes, and quality control. Offerors shall discuss their approach to managing the overall contract and approach for each task as stated in the PWS. The Offeror shall propose their approach to staffing urgent requirements and quality control. In addition, Offerors shall provide their proposed staffing and identify Key Personnel and dedicated management and technical individuals-with the technical and programmatic skills, education, employment, commitment, and experience adequate to accomplish the tasks set forth in the PWS. At a minimum, each resume shall list clearance level, education, and have discreet periods of performance for each job or task experience. The Offeror shall, at a minimum, provide sufficient detail that demonstrates its Program Management Plan for this effort, to include but not limited to organization plan, transition plan, key personnel designation plan, detail staffing plan matrix of proposed personnel that demonstrates qualifications, capabilities, skills and assignments, along with a risk mitigation plan. Additionally, demonstrate how the contractor shall interact with the Government representatives (including types and frequency of reporting), how it will manage transition from contract issuance to full performance, and how it will manage risks associated with performance.

The Offeror shall provide a detailed staffing plan demonstrating the Offeror’s ability to staff requirements in a reasonable amount of time and the Offeror’s ability to recruit and retain qualified candidates for the labor categories identified in the Government Performance Work Statement. The Offeror shall summarize employee experiences to address the specific requirements of each position identified in the PWS.

The Offeror shall discuss how long it will take to provide 100 percent of the required team resources after contract award and coverage for an interim period. The Offeror shall identify all risks associated with the staffing plan to include lengthy Background Investigation processing, short notice resignations, and immediate loss of security clearances for employees. The Offeror shall describe their ability to still ensure work described in the PWS can continue if they are staffed at less than 100 percent.

In addition to the above requirements, contractors shall submit organizational charts for managing the contract, position descriptions and resumes for key personnel. The extent of subcontracting and proposed office locations shall also be detailed. A draft Transition-in Plan shall also be included in Factor 2.

Factor 3: Past Performance (Non-Price) The Offeror’s past performance proposal shall address corporate past performance in performing projects similar in size, scope, and complexity to this requirement. The Offeror’s relevant Past Performance will be evaluated to assess the extent of its ability to perform the contract successfully (i.e., quality of service, timeliness of delivery/work, business relations, customer satisfaction, key personnel and staffing (including subcontractors/partners)).

The Offeror shall complete and submit Past Performance Questionnaires for three (3) previous or current contracts for services directly related or similar to the services required under this RFP. The Offeror shall have the Candidate Past Performance Interview Questions completed and submitted for their three (3) referenced contracts. Information for contracts or subcontracts shall be for relevant contracts and subcontracts currently in process or completed within the past three (3) years.

The Offeror shall complete and submit a Past Performance Relevant Experience Form for each contract provided as a reference.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Past Performance to determine its recency and relevancy to the current requirements. Source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in the Contractor’s performance and any associated risk shall be considered. The Contractor’s relevant Past Performance will be evaluated to assess the extent of its ability to perform the contract successfully.

In accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv), an offeror 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.

The Government will consider past or current contracts (including Federal, State and local government and private) for efforts similar to the Government requirement. The Government will consider information provided on problems encountered on the identified contracts and associated corrective actions. Offerors with a negative past performance rating will be afforded an opportunity to address alleged deficiencies. The Government may also consider information obtained from any other sources when evaluating past performance. Failure of an offeror to disclose a relevant Government contract with poor past performance may affect the Offeror’s past performance rating.

The Government will consider past performance information regarding the offeror’s experience, as a prime contractor or subcontractor.

Factor IV: Price Price will not be a numerically weighted factor in the evaluation of proposals. Price is the least important factor in this evaluation. The importance of price in the evaluation for award will increase with the degree of equality of the proposals.

The pricing submitted will determine the total evaluated price of each offeror, inclusive of option periods. To account for option period(s) possible under FAR 52.217-8 “Option to Extend Services”, the Government will determine the total evaluated price by summing CLIN totals for the base period, option periods 1-4, and prorating the final option period price to a six month value to account for the potential 6 month extension beyond the final option period available to the Government via FAR 52.217-8. Price proposals will be reviewed for reasonableness to determine whether they reflect an understanding of the requirements or contain apparent mistakes. The Offeror’s proposed approach must be consistent with the price proposal. The Government will conduct its price analysis of proposals in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. As part of the price evaluation, proposals may be reviewed to identify any significant unbalanced pricing. In accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g), Unbalanced Pricing, a proposal may be rejected if the CO determines the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

3.0 EVALUATION CRITERIA

3.1 Basis for Award: The Government intends to award a Firm Fixed Price/Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (FFP/IDIQ) Hybrid Type Contract resulting from this solicitation. The award will be made based on the best overall proposal that is determined to be most beneficial to the Government with appropriate consideration given to the evaluation factors and order of importance noted in paragraph 3.3: “Evaluation Factors-Order of Importance.” Award will be made to the Offeror whose proposal is determined to provide the “best value” to the Government on the basis of the four (4) factors and not necessarily the proposal offering the lowest price or receiving the highest evaluated rating.

3.2 General Information: The Offeror’s proposal should contain the best terms from a price and technical standpoint. The Government may reject any or all proposals if such action is in the public interest; accept an offer other than the lowest priced proposal; and waive informalities and minor irregularities in proposals received. The proposal evaluation will be conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 12 (Acquisition of Commercial Items) and Part 15 (Contracting By Negotiation).

3.3 Evaluation Factors-Order of Importance: The evaluation will be based on a complete assessment of the Offeror’s proposal. Proposals shall be evaluated on the following four (4) listed below, where Factor 1 is more important than Factor 2, Factor 2 is more important than Factor 3, and Factor 3 is more important than Factor 4. Under Factor 1 (Subfactor A is more important than Subfactor B). Price will become more important as the non-price evaluation factors become increasingly equal. Non-price related factors when combined are significantly more important than price.

Factor 1-Technical Approach (Non-Price) Subfactor A-Overall Technical Approach (Non-Price) Subfactor B-Technical Experience (Non-Price) Factor 2-Management Approach, Staffing Approach, and Methodology (Non-Price) Factor 3-Past Performance (Non-Price) Factor 4-Price

3.4 Evaluation Criteria: The criteria listed below are presented by major category, so that Offerors will know which areas require emphasis in the preparation of information. Offerors should note that these criteria serve as the standards against which all technical information will be evaluated, and serve to identify the significant matters which Offerors should address.

Factor 1: Technical Approach (Non-Price) The overall ratings for Subfactor A and Subfactor B under Factor 1 will be used to come up with the overall rating for Factor 1. The Offeror’s technical approach will be given an adjectival rating, based on the following criteria:

Outstanding (O) - The proposal demonstrates excellent understanding of requirements and an approach that significantly exceeds performance or capability standards. The proposal has one or more strengths that will significantly benefit the government.

Good (G) - The proposal demonstrates good understanding of requirements and approach that exceeds performance or capability standards. The proposal has one or more strengths that will benefit the government.

Acceptable (A)-Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance.

Marginal (M) – Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths.

Unacceptable (U) – Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies.

Subfactor A: Overall Technical Approach (Non-Price) The evaluation will consist of assessing the adequacy of the Offeror’s technical approach to accomplish the requirements set forth in the Performance Work Statement. The Government will assess all areas of relevant expertise of the Offeror and any subcontractors/teaming members in order to ensure that the Offeror demonstrates a depth and breadth of understanding of the technical requirements set forth in the Performance Work Statement. The Government will assess the Offeror’s capability to meet all of the requirements set forth in the Performance Work Statement. The Offeror’s overall technical approach will be given an adjectival rating, based on the following criteria:

Outstanding (O) - The proposal demonstrates excellent understanding of requirements and an approach that significantly exceeds performance or capability standards. The proposal has one or more strengths that will significantly benefit the government.

Good (G) - The proposal demonstrates good understanding of requirements and approach that exceeds performance or capability standards. The proposal has one or more strengths that will benefit the government.

Acceptable (A)-Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance.

Marginal (M) – Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths.

Unacceptable (U) – Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies.

Subfactor B: Technical Experience (Non-Price) The evaluation will consist of assessing the Offeror’s depth and breadth of experience successfully completing the tasks set forth in the Performance Work Statement. The Government will assess the experience of the Offeror as it pertains to Project/Program Management, Preventative Maintenance, Minor Repairs, and other related areas. The Government will evaluate the experience and qualifications of all key personnel (including the Program Manager) and senior technical experts for all areas. The Offeror’s technical experience will be given an adjectival rating, based on the following criteria:

Outstanding (O) - The proposal demonstrates excellent understanding of requirements and an approach that significantly exceeds performance or capability standards. The proposal has one or more strengths that will significantly benefit the government.

Good (G) - The proposal demonstrates good understanding of requirements and approach that exceeds performance or capability standards. The proposal has one or more strengths that will benefit the government.

Acceptable (A)-Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance.

Marginal (M) – Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths.

Unacceptable (U) – Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies.

Factor 2-Overall Management Approach, Staffing Approach, and Methodology (Non-Price) The evaluation will consist of assessing a proper staffing approach to meet the Government’s requirements and how the Offeror plans to manage unexpected turnover due to promotions, employees leaving the company, extended illnesses, military duty, etc., and how that plan minimizes the impact on contract performance. The evaluation will assess the Offeror’s proposed approach to implementing, managing, and administering programs similar in scope and complexity specified in the PWS. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s management/staffing approach as it pertains to the requirements set forth in the Performance Work Statement. The Offeror’s Management/Staffing Approach will be given an adjectival rating, based on the following criteria:

Outstanding (O) - The proposal demonstrates excellent understanding of requirements and an approach that significantly exceeds performance or capability standards. The proposal has one or more strengths that will significantly benefit the government.

Good (G) - The proposal demonstrates good understanding of requirements and approach that exceeds performance or capability standards. The proposal has one or more strengths that will benefit the government.

Acceptable (A)-Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance.

Marginal (M) – Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths.

Unacceptable (U) – Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies.

Factor 3-Past Performance (Non-Price) The Government will assess the Offeror’s past performance references and any other additional information available to determine whether the Offeror’s past performance is relevant in terms of size, scope, and complexity to the requirements set forth in the Performance Work Statement. The Government may consider other past performance information that is available in the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS). Offerors who do not have any past performance of record will be rated as neutral. The Government will also assess how well the Offeror performed on their other provided referenced contracts. The Government will evaluate past performance in accordance with the relevancy rating scale below:

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Overall Performance Confidence Rating

Factor 4-Price While price will not be assigned an adjectival rating during the evaluation, it is a criterion in the overall evaluation of proposals. Price will be evaluated for reasonableness using the price analysis techniques in FAR 15.404-1(b) and for evidence that the Offeror understands the overall requirement. Price will become more important as the non-price evaluation factors become increasingly equal. Non-price related factors when combined are significantly more important than price. For clarification purposes, prices for the Preventative Maintenance and Minor repair work will be evaluated for the Base ID/IQ. A separate price analysis will be conducted for each Task Order.

For evaluation purposes only, the total evaluated price is the sum of the total prices submitted for (a) the base period, (b) the option periods, and (c) the six-month extension authorized by FAR clause 52.217-8. For purposes of determining the evaluated price, for the six month 52.217-8 extension, the total price is calculated as one-half of the total price of the final option year. Evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

Price proposals will be reviewed for reasonableness to determine whether they reflect an understanding of the requirements or contain apparent mistakes. The Offeror’s proposed approach must be consistent with the price proposal. The Government will conduct its price analysis of proposals in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. As part of the price evaluation, proposals may be reviewed to identify any significant unbalanced pricing. In accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g), Unbalanced Pricing, a proposal may be rejected if the CO determines the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.