Submission_Instructions_Basis_for_Award.pdf

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS FOR PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

1. Proposals shall be submitted electronically to ContractingProposals@uscis.dhs.gov.

Offerors must be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) site at https://www.sam.gov in order to be considered for award. All questions regarding this solicitation shall be submitted to the Contract Specialist at email christopher.c.hatin@uscis.dhs.gov within three (3) calendar days of receipt of the amendment.

2. Proposal information previously submitted in response to this solicitation may be used in the response to this amendment; however, all documents must be re-submitted in accordance with the revised instructions below and dated to show an “as of date” within the amendment period. Offerors shall submit proposals electronically unless otherwise instructed. If the offeror finds it necessary to take exception to any of the requirements specified in this solicitation, the offeror shall clearly identify the exception.

3. Volumes shall contain a cover sheet, which shall have at a minimum the offeror's name, solicitation number, DUNS number, telephone and e-mail address. All text shall be single spaced and printed black on white paper (Black and white requirement does not apply to graphics, photos, etc., Company stationary and logos are acceptable). Printing shall be easily readable (12-pitch type or 10 point proportional spacing). Cross-references should be utilized to preclude unnecessary duplication of data between sections. Individual electronic files shall not be larger than 5 MB in size. Page limitations, when imposed, are identified below.

4. Volumes shall be clear, concise, and include sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiating the validity of any stated claims in the proposal. Legibility, clarity and coherence are very important. Proposals shall be evaluated against the corresponding factors defined in the section labeled “Evaluation Factors for Award”. Proposals shall not simply rephrase or restate the government's requirements, but rather shall provide convincing rationale to address how the offeror intends to meet these requirements. Offerors shall assume that the government has no prior knowledge of their solutions, and will base its evaluation on the information presented in the offeror's proposal. The offeror shall address as specifically as possible the actual methodology for accomplishing the SOW tasks.

5. Subcontracting plans shall not be submitted as part of the initial proposal submission. A subcontracting plan, if required, shall only be requested from the apparently successful offeror prior to award.

6. It is the government’s intention to award without discussions. Award determination shall be made based on a trade-off analysis between non-price factors and the price factor.

7. In accordance with FAR Part 15.306, should discussions become necessary, the government reserves the right to hold discussions. If this occurs, affected offerors shall be notified in writing. If established, a competitive range may be limited for purposes of efficiency IAW FAR Part 15.306(c)(2). The determination to hold discussions may be made at any time during the evaluation process.

PROPOSAL VOLUME CONTENT

The Technical Volume shall address Factors 1, Technical Capabilities, 2, Operations and Maintenance Approach, and 3, Deployment Plan. The Technical Volume shall be limited to 20 pages, inclusive of cover page and table of contents. If appendices or attachments are used, they shall be submitted separate from the Technical Volume and shall not exceed an additional 20 pages. The Technical Volume shall contain an unambiguous statement that the offeror agrees to all clauses, terms, or conditions (including all statement of work requirements) as shown in the solicitation. The Technical Volume shall contain a list of the technical specifications of all system components offered. The system components listing shall become part of any award made as a result of this solicitation. Graphics, photographs, or screenshots of the software in use are encouraged to assist the government’s evaluation of compliance with requirements in the SOW. The Technical Volume shall provide information sufficient to allow the government to determine whether their proposed solution meets or exceeds the requirements in Sections 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4 (and associated subsections of 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4).

The Technical Volume shall include a self-certification, which shall affirm that an offeror’s solutions meet or exceed all of the requirements in Attachment M of the SOW. Offerors shall submit a draft deployment plan as part of their proposal in accordance with Section 4.0 of the SOW. Offerors must provide sufficient information for the government to determine how they will support deployment, installation, training, and maintenance of new systems purchased under this contract. An offeror’s approach for operations and maintenance support shall address both preventive and remedial maintenance, as defined in sections 11.7.1 and 11.7.2.

Additionally, offerors must also address the requirements in Sections 7.0, 9.0, 10.0, 11.0, and

15.0 (including any associated subsections of each section listed) in their Technical Volume.

The Business Volume shall address Factor 4, past performance. This volume does not have a page limit, but it shall contain only the information called for in this paragraph. The first page shall include the offeror’s name, address, and DUNS number, as well as the name, title, phone number, and e-mail address of the person who will be responsible for receiving questions or other exchanges from the Government. A table of contents is expected. The volume shall include any information required by the solicitation not otherwise required to be included in the Technical Volume (such as the copy of the approved waiver contemplated by paragraph (g) of the clause at HSAR 3052.209-70, if applicable). Regarding past performance, offerors shall identify past or current contract efforts similar to the requirements of this acquisition. The offeror may submit no more than three (3) past performance references each for the offeror and for each major subcontractor. Major subcontractor is defined as a contractor performing greater than or equal to 10% of overall contract value. Past performance submitted for major subcontractors shall show how this entity qualifies as a major subcontractor, consistent with the definition above. The government will consider data provided, as well as information from other sources, such as the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), the System for Award Management (SAM), the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), and questionnaires completed by references and submitted to the contracting office.

Past performance submitted shall be within three (3) years of the solicitation issue date.

Information for references shall contain the following: the names and telephone numbers of contact persons from previous customers who can provide information regarding the offeror’s performance. Offerors shall include the dollar amount and length of contract for each contract referenced. If used, an offeror shall provide a blank questionnaire to references for completion.

Each past performance questionnaire shall be returned directly to the government in accordance with the instructions provided. Offerors are not required to use the questionnaire.

Separate from the Business Volume, offerors shall submit a Pricing Proposal in an editable format. The government shall use this submission to evaluate Factor 5, Price. This document does not have a page limit. The completed pricing document shall include information for the base and all option periods. For purposes of the total evaluated price, only the base period CLINs and CLINs 1001, 2001, 3001, and 4001 shall be used to calculate total evaluated price.

The quantities for CLINs for equipment purchase in the option periods represent optional equipment above the known estimated amounts. Any purchase of the optional equipment shall not exceed the total amount identified in any one ordering period. For example, the total estimated amount of additional equipment for cabinet systems is 135. The government will not purchase more than 135 additional systems over the life of the contract, but may purchase all or some of the quantity up to the 135 over the life of the contract. The total number purchased shall be cumulative over all of the ordering periods.

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The government shall make an award to the responsible offeror submitting a proposal that represents the best value to the government. Proposal information submitted in response to this solicitation amendment shall be used to make the award determination. All requirements in the SOW must be met for an offer to be considered acceptable and eligible for award. Selection shall be made utilizing a trade-off analysis based on all evaluation factors listed below. In making this comparison, the government is more concerned with obtaining superior performance capability than a low overall price. However, the government will not issue an award to a contractor who presents a significantly higher overall price to achieve only slightly superior performance capabilities.

EVALUATION FACTORS

The factors that will be used to evaluate each offer are summarized below.

Factor 1 – Technical Capabilities Factor 2 - Operations & Maintenance Approach Factor 3 - Deployment Plan Factor 4 - Past Performance Factor 5 - Price

Factor 1, Factor 2, Factor 3, and Factor 4 are in descending order of importance Factors 1, 2, 3, and 4, when combined, are significantly more important than Factor 5

EVALUATION FACTOR DESCRIPTIONS

Factor 1 - Technical Capabilities

The Technical Volume shall be used to evaluate this factor.

The government shall determine whether the technical specifications of system components offered meet or exceed the requirements in Sections 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4 (and associated subsections of 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4).

Factor 2 - Operations & Maintenance Approach

The Technical Volume shall be used to evaluate this factor.

The government shall evaluate the Operations & Maintenance approach to determine whether it describes processes that will ensure the requirements in section 11 (and associated sub-sections) of the SOW are met or exceeded. The government shall evaluate whether the preventive maintenance approach is reasonable, feasible, and provides support to deployed systems. Additionally, the government shall evaluate the approach to determine the sufficiency of an offeror’s method for replacement of defective parts/components, their method for hotline/telephone support, their method for sending personnel to various locations when on-site support is required, an offeror’s approach to protection of information during equipment maintenance, and remote system access for maintenance.

Factor 3 - Deployment Plan

The Technical Volume shall be used to evaluate this factor.

The government shall evaluate the draft deployment plan to ensure all locations are considered, the timeline is realistic, and all required topics are sufficiently and adequately addressed to ensure the requirements are met or exceeded. Also, the government shall evaluate the methodology offered to meet or exceed the deployment schedule, dispose of old equipment, installation of new equipment, and training for Livescan system operators.

Factor 4 – Past Performance

The Business Volume shall be used to evaluate this factor.

The government shall assign a level of confidence to each offeror’s past performance submission. This assignment shall be based on performance submitted and verified by government evaluators. Past performance evaluation will consider whether the information submitted is relevant to this acquisition, and whether the reports show a pattern of consistency.

The evaluation may include data provided through the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), the System for Award Management (SAM), the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), questionnaires completed by references and submitted to the contracting office, or information gathered directly by USCIS from references provided. Recent past performance is defined as having been performed within the past three years from the date of RFP issuance and may include active contracts. Only relevant past performance will be evaluated for purposes of past performance. In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.

Factor 5 – Price

The Business Volume shall be used to evaluate this factor.

Price will be evaluated for reasonableness in accordance with one or more price analysis techniques identified in FAR Parts 15.404 and 12.209. Price will be evaluated on the basis of total estimated price submitted. The total evaluated price is defined as the base period plus the pricing submitted for CLINs 1001, 2001, 3001, and 4001. The total evaluated price shall not include pricing for the remaining option period CLINs.

If needed, the Government intends to exercise an extension of a performance period under the authority of FAR 52.217-8 without further competition or need for justification for other than full or open competition. For purposes of evaluation, the potential need to exercise an extension under FAR 52.217-8 for the maximum period of six (6) months beyond the end of a performance period will be considered the same for all offerors. In considering the price of the base period and any option periods, the government will consider that if the extension of service clause (FAR 52.217-8) is exercised, it will be at the exact same rates and terms, other than length of performance, as the base or option period being extended. The Government will determine whether the price, inclusive of all options (including the options available under FAR 52.217-8), is fair and reasonable, and whether the price of the base period and all option periods (including the option(s) represented by FAR 52.217-8), in combination with the other evaluation factors specified in the solicitation, represents the best value to the Government.

Subcontracting Plan

This provision does not apply to small business concerns. A subcontracting plan as required by FAR 19.702 shall be submitted by the apparently successful offeror. This submission shall be a stand-alone document, not as a part of other volumes submitted. The submission shall be an Adobe (.pdf) file no larger than 3 MB in size. The submission shall not contain more than ten

(10) pages, cover page and table of contents inclusive. The subcontracting plan shall contain all information required per FAR 19.704. The contracting officer shall request this information only from the apparently successful offeror prior to award. DHS small business goals are listed in the table below.

FY 2015 Small Business Subcontracting Goals

SB Subcontracts 41.0%

SDB Subcontracts 5.0%

WOSB Subcontracts 5.0%

HUBZone Subcontracts 3.0%

SDVOSB Subcontracts 3.0%

The following ratings will be used in evaluating factors one through three as listed above. These factors are considered to be technical factors.

Ratings for Technical Evaluation Factors Rating Definition

Superior

Proposal demonstrates a superior understanding of the requirements and an approach that significantly exceeds performance or capability standards. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Good

Proposal demonstrates a good understanding of the requirements and an approach that exceeds performance or capability standards. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Acceptable

Proposal demonstrates an understanding of the requirements and an approach that meets performance or capability standards. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Unacceptable

Proposal does not demonstrate an understanding of the requirements and the approach does not meet performance or capability standards. Proposal presents an unacceptable solution or demonstrates unacceptable risk. A contract cannot be awarded if there is an unacceptable rating in any factor.

Strength - An element of a proposal which exceeds a requirement of the solicitation in a beneficial way to the Government.

Significant Strength – An element of a proposal which significantly exceeds a requirement of the solicitation in a way that is very beneficial to the Government.

Weakness: A flaw in a proposal that increases the chance of unsuccessful performance.

Significant Weakness - A flaw in a proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

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

Relevant - Sufficiently similar to the ongoing acquisition to provide indicators of expected performance.

The following ratings will be used in evaluating past performance (Factor 4 as listed above).

Confidence is an assessment of how successful an offeror will be based on their past performance.

Ratings for Past Performance Rating Definition

Neutral No relevant performance record is identifiable upon which to base a meaningful performance rating. This is neither a negative or positive assessment.

High Confidence Based on the offeror’s past performance record, it is likely that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Low Confidence Based on the offeror’s past performance record, it is unlikely that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort without significant government oversight.