VTC_Maintenance_Agreement_FY_2015.docx

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board Financial and Administrative Management 1615 M Street, NW Washington, DC 20036

REQUEST FOR QUOTATION

MSPB-RFP-15-002

VTC MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT

INTRODUCTION

The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) is an independent, quasi-judicial agency established to protect Federal merit systems and the rights of individuals within those systems. The MSPB carries out its statutory responsibilities and authorities primarily by adjudicating individual employee appeals and by conducting merit systems studies. The agency is headed by a three (3) member Board who are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Our headquarters is located in Washington, DC, and we have eight (8) regional and field offices throughout the United States.

SCOPE OF WORK

A comprehensive Maintenance/Service Agreement is needed for the existing VTC equipment at the MSPB Headquarters, as well as the eight (8) Regional/Field Locations throughout the United States. This Maintenance/Service Agreement should include, but not be limited to, the following:

· Full-Service On-Site Maintenance for all eight (8) MSPB Regional/Field Locations, as well as MSPB HQ, including on-site parts replacement;

· Four (4) hour response time on all on-site maintenance visits;

· Unlimited warranty for all part replacements and repairs;

· 24x7 Remote Technical Assistance;

· Software updates and upgrades;

· Two (2) Scheduled On-Site Preventive Maintenance visits per year.

The MSPB locations are listed below.

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board Headquarters Office 1615 M Street, NW, Suite 500 Washington, DC 20036

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board Atlanta Regional Office 401 West Peachtree Street, NW, 10th Floor Atlanta, GA 30308-3519

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board Central Regional Office 230 South Dearborn Street, Suite 3100 Chicago, IL 60604-1669

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board Dallas Regional Office 1100 Commerce Street, Room 620 Dallas, TX 75242-9979

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board Denver Field Office 165 South Union Boulevard, Suite 318 Lakewood, CO 80228-2211

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board New York Field Office 26 Federal Plaza, Room 3137A New York, NY 10278

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board Northeastern Regional Office 1601 Market Street, Suite 1700 Philadelphia, PA 19103

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board Western Regional Office 201 Mission Street, Suite 2310 San Francisco, CA 94105-1831

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board Washington Regional Office 1901 South Bell Street, Suite 950 Arlington, VA 22202-4802

AWARD FACTORS

The Government intends to make a single award as a result of this RFQ. However, the Government reserves the right to award more than one award or to make no award at all.

Any award will be made based on the best overall (i.e., best value) proposal that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the three following evaluation Factors: Technical, Price, and Past Performance. The Technical Factor is significantly more important than the Price Factor, which is significantly more important than the Past Performance Factor. To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than “Acceptable” must be achieved for the Technical Factor. Offerors are cautioned that the award may not necessarily be made to the lowest Price offered or the most highly rated technical proposal.

EVALUATION APPROACH

The Government reserves the right to award without discussions based upon the initial evaluation of proposals. The proposal will be evaluated strictly in accordance with its written content. Proposals which merely restate the requirement or state that the requirement will be met, without providing supporting rationale, are not sufficient. Offerors who fail to meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation will be rated Unacceptable and thus, ineligible for award.

TECHNICAL EXPERTISE

The offeror must have proven technical expertise in the areas specified in the Statement of Work (SOW). The evaluation process will consider the following:

a. Understanding of the Problem - The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which it demonstrates a clear understanding of all features involved in solving the problems and meeting and/or exceeding the requirements presented in the solicitation and the extent to which uncertainties are identified and resolutions proposed.

b. Feasibility of Approach - The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the proposed approach is workable and the end results achievable. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the level of confidence provided the Government with respect to the Offeror's methods and approach in successfully meeting and/or exceeding the requirements in a timely manner.

c. Completeness - The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the Offeror’s methods and approach have adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirements specified in the solicitation. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which each requirement has been addressed (i.e., met and/or exceeded) in accordance with the proposal submission instructions of the solicitation.

PRICE EVALUATION APPROACH

The Government will evaluate offers by adding the total of all line item prices, including all options. The Total Evaluated Price will be that sum.

PAST PERFORMANCE AND EXPERIENCE

Proposals shall provide comprehensive information and demonstrated evidence of the Offeror’s past performance and previous experience in VTC Maintenance/Repairs. The Past Performance evaluation will assess the relative risks associated with an Offeror's likelihood of success in fulfilling the solicitation's requirements as indicated by that Offeror's record of past performance. In this context, “Offeror” refers to the proposed prime contractor and all proposed major subcontractor(s).

The Government reserves the right to obtain past performance information from any available source and may contact customers other than those identified by the Offeror when evaluating past performance. Since the Government may not necessarily interview all of the sources provided by the Offerors, it is incumbent upon the Offerors to explain the relevance of the data provided. Offerors are reminded that the burden of proving low performance risk rests with the Offerors. The Government will review aspects of cost, schedule and performance. Areas to be evaluated may include but are not limited to quality of product or service, timeliness of performance or adherence to delivery schedules, and/or effectiveness in program management (to include use and control of subcontractors). 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.

RATING DESCRIPTIONS

(a) The following categorical descriptions shall be used to derive an adjectival evaluation of the offeror’s technical proposal:

I. Exceptional: The technical proposal demonstrates the offeror’s complete understanding of all of the requirements, and proposes innovative, cost effective approaches or solutions that will exceed requirements using standard industry practices, technologies, methodologies, and processes. Proposals evaluated with exceptional ratings possess multiple significant strengths, no significant weaknesses, no deficiencies and only minor weaknesses. Exceptional proposals possess no omissions. The offeror’s proposed approaches/solutions, when implemented, are expected to result in superior achievement of the Government’s objectives with minimal risk.

II. Excellent: The technical proposal demonstrates the offeror’s understanding of all of the requirements, and proposes innovative, cost effective approaches or solutions that meet MSPB’s requirements using standard industry practices, technologies, methodologies, and processes. Proposals evaluated with excellent ratings possess significant strengths, no significant weaknesses, no deficiencies and several minor weaknesses. The offeror’s proposed approaches/solutions, when implemented, are expected to result in the achievement of the Government’s objectives with low risk.

III. Acceptable: The technical proposal demonstrates the offeror’s understanding of the technical requirement, and proposes an approach that will meet MSPB’s requirements using commercially acceptable industry practices, technologies, methodologies, and processes. The offeror’s proposed approaches/solutions, when implemented, introduce moderate risk but are considered likely to produce performance results meeting the Government’s objectives. An Acceptable rating indicates that the proposed solution contains a number of strengths, but also some weaknesses.

IV. Unacceptable: The technical proposal demonstrates that the offeror does not understand the technical requirement; the offeror’s technical approach is not technically feasible or is based upon outdated or risky technologies, methodologies, and questionable processes. The offeror failed to meet minimum requirements specified in the SOW. Proposals with unacceptable ratings have few or no strengths and several significant weaknesses and/or minor deficiencies, minor weaknesses and omissions. An unacceptable proposal fails to provide a reasonable, logical approach to fulfilling the Government’s requirements. An unacceptable proposal is one in which an unacceptable risk of performance failure exists.

(b) The following categorical descriptions shall be used to derive an adjectival evaluation of the offeror’s Past Performance:

I. Exceptional: The offeror’s record of past performance suggests that the Government can expect superior performance and customer satisfaction with minimal risk.

II. Excellent: The offeror’s record of past performance suggests that the Government can expect successful performance and customer satisfaction with low risk.

III. Adequate: The offeror’s record of past performance suggests that the Government may expect satisfactory performance and customer satisfaction with moderate risk.

IV. Unacceptable: The offeror’s record of past performance suggests that the Government may expect unsatisfactory performance and customer satisfaction. The offeror’s performance record suggests an unacceptable degree of risk.

V. Unknown: No performance record is identifiable. This is a neutral weighting. It does not hinder nor help the offeror.

PAYMENT INFORMATION

A purchase order will be prepared covering all costs associated with this award. Payment will be made at the conclusion of the services after receipt of a proper invoice.

By the time of award, contractor must be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM). Registration may be completed on-line at http://www.sam.gov

SUBMISSION

Responses may be submitted electronically to michaela.klarmann@mspb.gov or mailed to U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board ATTN: Michaela Klarmann 1615 M Street, NW, Suite 500 Washington, DC 20036 Responses must be received by 4:00 p.m., EST., August 14, 2015.

image1.png oleObject1.bin

PAGE

PAGE