RFP Section M - Best Value CPCS.pdf

F41999-26-R-0003

COMMERCIAL PURCHASING CARD SERVICES

DATED 31 Aug 2026 M-1

Section M Evaluation Factors for Award Best Value Trade-off Selection

M. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

The basis of award is Best Value Trade-off. This process permits trade-offs among evaluation factors. The Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentality (NAFI) can accept other than the lowest priced proposed Solution. In making this determination, all evaluation factors other than price, when combined, may support award to other than the lowest priced offerors. The NAFI has established a Source Selection Evaluation Team (SSET) to evaluate proposals submitted for this procurement using the criteria in Section M. The NAFI will select the responsive, responsible offeror whose proposal represents the best value considering Technical, Past Performance and Price.

M.2. NUMBER OF CONTRACTS TO BE AWARDED

The NAFI intends to award one contract for the performance of this requirement. The NAFI intends to award a contract without discussions and without the opportunity for proposal revision. Offerors shall submit sufficient information according to the format specified in the proposal preparation instructions to permit a meaningful assessment of proposals.

Communications and/or exchanges conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions; however, the NAFI reserves the right to hold discussions. The NAFI reserves the right to make no award. Proposal validity period shall be at least 180 calendar days from the closing date of this solicitation.

M.3. EVALUATION

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified in as factors or subfactors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale. The NAFI reserves the right to determine any such exceptions unacceptable. All evaluation factors other than price, when combined, may support award to other than the lowest priced offerors. The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal. These factors are listed in their relative order of importance. If the NAFI determines the Offeror’s minimum qualifications are not met or the technical solution is rated marginal or below as outlined in SOO C.3., no further evaluation will be conducted.

M-2

M.3.1. Evaluation Factors

• Factor 1 – Technical Excellence o Subfactor 1A – Technical Approach o Subfactor 1B – Transition Plan o Subfactor 1C – Contractor Technical Solution Statement

• Factor 2 – Live Test Demonstration (LTD)

• Factor 3 – Past Performance o Subfactor 3A – Relevancy o Subfactor 3B – Past Performance Questionnaire

• Factor 4 – Price

M.3.2. Factor 1 - Technical Excellence

Technical Rating: Offerors’ proposal shall demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of the nature and scope of work required. The technical rating reflects the evaluation of the acceptability of the Offeror’s technical approach for meeting the NAFI’s requirements. The term “technical” as used herein, refers to factors other than past performance. The NAFI will not search for data to solve problems or address inconsistencies in an Offeror’s proposal. There are three (3) subfactors under Technical Excellence factor: 1) Technical Approach, 2) Transition Plan and 3) Contractor Technical Solution Statement. Each subfactor will be assigned a combined Technical/Risk rating of “Outstanding/Good/Acceptable/Marginal/Unacceptable” at the Subfactor level to assess the offeror’s technical acceptability based on whether the proposal meets basic SOO requirements along with meeting evaluation criteria standards. To be eligible for award, offerors are required to receive an “Acceptable” rating in each technical subfactor.

Combined Technical/Risk Rating. The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings.

Adjectival Rating Description

(O) Outstanding Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

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

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

M-3

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

(U) Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable, and/or risk of performance is unacceptably high.

M.3.2.1. Subfactor 1A, Technical Approach

In evaluating Technical Approach, the SSET will look specifically at the Offeror’s narrative response for this subfactor which demonstrates a clear, detailed understanding of and the operational ability to accomplish the totality of the NAFI’s requirements as outlined in Section C – Statement of Objectives. The Offeror’s response reflects a sound approach for overall performance as well as identifies risk and ways to manage risk in all areas, but Offeror’s can distinguish themselves in the following areas.

• Liability

• Delinquency Control

• Risk Mitigation Assistance

• Government-Wide Shut Down

• Program Analytics

• Security Requirements

Offerors must substantiate their technical excellence by providing a detailed approach that addresses the following operational areas:

• Proposed Tools and Processes: Describe the specific payment solution tools, platforms, and operational processes proposed to perform the required services.

• Security Posture and Risk Mitigation: Describe the proposed cybersecurity and system security framework for the payment solution. This must include active protocols for preventing, detecting, mitigating, and reporting security incidents or data breaches, as well as specific procedures for ensuring continuous compliance with applicable federal and industry security standards (e.g., PCI-DSS).

• System Capacity, Scalability, and Account Management: Demonstrate the proposed system's capability, capacity, and scalability to manage the NAFI's estimated charge volume, transaction frequency, and active account holders. Offerors must explicitly describe how the proposed system will manage, segregate, and report different account types, specifically Centrally Billed Accounts (CBAs) and Individually Billed Accounts (IBAs).

M.3.2.2. Subfactor 1B – Transition Plan

M-4

In evaluating Technical Excellence, the NAFI will also look specifically at the Offeror’s plan for transition of services at both the start and end of the contracts. A proposal reflects a sound plan of transition without a break in service between the out-going contractor, incoming contractor, and current task orders. It adequately identifies key areas of transition and the potential risk, as well as mitigation of risk, in terms of processes, personnel, schedule, communication, and program data. The plan also recognizes the potential for performance issues and failure and provides a risk mitigation plan that enables the offeror to continue providing product and service offerings with the least amount of disruption. Strategies optimize agency/organization on-boarding while minimizing costs for all parties, including out-going contractors.

Communication channels at all levels are clear, timeframes and capabilities documented, and responsibilities clearly defined.

M.3.2.2.1. The plan contains realistic ways to manage across the program requirements (where applicable), while supporting a variety of agencies/organizations under multiple concurrent task orders of various size, spend, and containing agency/organization-specific requirements. The offeror’s proposal reflects a sound strategy and customer-focused approach that seamlessly transitions agencies/organizations. Transition and Implementation Schedule: Provide a detailed transition and implementation schedule showing the critical path and key milestones from contract award through Full Operational Capability (FOC). The schedule must detail major tasks, deliverables, dependency gates, and risk mitigation strategies to ensure an on-time, seamless transition.

M.3.2.2.2. The plan reflects a sound approach for assignment of dedicated government bank identification numbers (BINs) to be utilized for the contract. The plan reflects a sound plan for how the offeror will meet requirements for widespread merchant acceptance.

M.3.2.2.3. The SSET will also evaluate the degree to which the offeror not only comprehensively identifies how requirements will be met, leaving the SSET confident that not only will the offeror perform successfully from contract kick-off through contract close-out. The Transition Plan should minimize risk to the NAFI in all areas.

M.3.2.3. Subfactor 1C – Contractor Technical Solution Statement (CTSS)

M.3.2.3.1. The Contractor must provide a Contractor Technical Solution Statement (CTSS). The CTSS defines tasks required to meet Section C:

STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES (SOO). The Contractor must provide a written response outlining its technical solution to each paragraph and sub-paragraph in the SOO (Section C). “Yes”, “Met”, and other ambiguous

M-5 responses that do not provide an actual technical solution will be deemed unacceptable. The NAFI will evaluate the CTSS as part of Technical Proposal. The CTSS will be incorporated, at contract award, into Section J.

M.3.2.3.2. In evaluating CTSS, the NAFI will look specifically at the Offeror’s full understanding of the requirements to establish an operational structure to ensure high-quality, seamless operations.

M.3.2.3.3. A CTSS covers all key activities of the prime Offeror and all joint venture partners and/or subcontractors and team members outlining an effective operational structure with a clear hierarchy and management structure for how organizational components will work together and interface with the NAFI at all levels.

M.3.2.3.4. The Offeror is able to recruit, retain and manage personnel with resourcing of organization components done quickly and effectively. Offeror anticipates organizational changes necessary to perform on the contract at all levels. A CTSS reflects key personnel who meet contract requirements and have authority commensurate to their duties, as do individuals monitoring quality and implementing corrective measures under the contract.

M.3.2.3.5. The CTSS is focused on all areas of performance and adequately addresses customer service, communication, and training requirements.

Commercial leading practices are utilized to improve NAFI processes. Problem-solving occurs at the earliest possible moment, reflecting a clear and streamlined process, especially for transaction and billing/invoicing cycles. Processes are in place to address all quality assurance requirements and processes mitigate impacts, preventing any degradation of services to customers. Quality assurance assessments and measurement tools will ensure NAFI goals, requirements and objectives are achieved.

M.3.2.3.6. The NAFI will also evaluate the degree to which the Offeror not only comprehensively identifies how requirements will be met, leaving the NAFI confident that not only will the Offeror perform successfully, but that it will deliver superior service from contract kick-off through contract close-out.

M.3.2.3.7. The CTSS should recognize potential unknowns, such as changes in law or regulation or changes in technology or security protocols and clearly identify a plan for how to implement future changes with the least impact to the NAFI. The CTSS should reflect NAFI requirements and objectives

M-6 that will be met and should most often exceed to a high degree of confidence that services will be delivered securely, timely and be well-managed.

M.3.3. Factor 2 – Live Test Demonstration

The Electronic Access System (EAS) Live Test Demonstration (LTD) Section J (Attachment 1) is based on the NAFI test categories which are designed to validate the Electronic Access System (EAS) solution offered and reach the final award decision(s).

The purpose of the LTD is to provide an unbiased review of the prospective EAS service against the stated requirements in the solicitation. LTD will also confirm the offeror’s service requirements as put forth in their proposals. Factor 2 will be assigned a “Pass” or “Fail” rating. To be eligible for award, offerors are required to receive an “Pass” rating in each test category. A test category with a “failed” rating will render the proposal unacceptable and therefore, not awardable.

Adjectival Rating Description Pass Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Fail Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

M.3.3.1. The offeror will demonstrate their EAS solution virtually to the NAFI in accordance with Section J, Attachment 1 – Live Test Demonstration, which lists the category and the test actions and scenarios. The offeror will receive a date/time after receipt of proposal for the Offeror to perform the LTD. The evaluation will be based on the ability of the offeror’s proposed EAS to:

M.3.3.2. Output the expected/required results of each test step; meet the system quality requirements defined in Section C - Statement of Objectives. The offeror will receive a “Pass” or “Fail” rating for each test category in the LTD. In evaluating the LTD(s), the NAFI will look for clear evidence that the offeror’s EAS will provide the required functionality in an intuitive manner.

M.3.3.3. Section J, Attachment 1 – Live Test Demonstration also provides a structure for the offeror’s LTD package in the proposal. The proposal shall demonstrate the EAS is fully functional and fulfills EAS requirements. The SSET will also evaluate the degree to which the offeror’s proposal demonstrates the EAS is fully functional and fulfills EAS requirements and offers enhanced features/benefits to the SSET that aid in the SSET’s set-up and administration of the NAFI’s purchase card program.

M-7

M.3.4. Factor 3 – Past Performance

M.3.4.1. Past Performance Evaluation

The Past Performance evaluation assesses the degree of confidence the Agency has in an Offeror’s ability to provide the services that meet the customer’s needs based on a demonstrated record of performance. The Agency will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts. There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation. The first is to evaluate the offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the contractor performed on the contracts.

M.3.4.1.1. The offeror shall provide a maximum of three past performance contract references. Prime must provide at least three of its own Past Performance references to be eligible to receive a “Substantial” confidence rating.

Offerors will not receive an overall Past Performance Confidence Assessment rating of “Satisfactory” of “Substantial” if they have no recent and relevant coverage of all technical areas.

M.3.4.1.2. The Past Performance Evaluation will be accomplished by reviewing the Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ) submitted by the Offeror’s references, as well as the Past Performance Information (PPI) narratives submitted by the Offeror. The NAFI will consider the performance quality of recent past performance, focusing on efforts that are relevant to the requirements in this solicitation. The PPQs will be sent by the NAFI to the Offeror’s references.

M.3.4.1.3. Sources of Past Performance Information for Evaluation are as follows:

• Past performance information provided by the offeror, as solicited.

• Past performance information obtained from questionnaires.

• Past performance information shall be obtained from any other sources available to the NAFI, to include, but not limited to, interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Fee Determining Officials.

M.3.4.1.4. The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The past performance evaluation considers each offeror's demonstrated recent and relevant

M-8 record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements. Recency is defined as contracts completed or ongoing recency is defined as active or completed efforts performed within the past five (5) years from the issuance date of this solicitation. If the ordering period of an Indefinite-Delivery, Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ) type contract has expired but the performance period on a task order is still ongoing or within the above date, the Task Order will be considered recent. Information not meeting this criterion will not be evaluated.

Relevant performance is defined as efforts involving a similar scope and similar magnitude of effort and complexity as this solicitation requires.

M.3.4.2. Relevancy Rating Assessment

M.3.4.2.1. The NAFI reserves the right to use both data provided by the Offeror and data obtained from other sources in conducting this assessment. Relevance is based on the degree of similarity between the Offeror’s past performance and current requirements. Consideration will be given the extent that the effort is the same/similar in technical scope to this program’s technical areas, complexity of the effort, contract type, and dollar value.

M.3.4.2.2. More relevant past performance will have more influence on past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance. The NAFI is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of relevancy.

Table M-2 - Relevancy Rating Chart

Very Relevant (VR) Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires

Relevant (R) Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires

Somewhat Relevant (SR) Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant (NR) Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires

M.3.4.3. Past Performance Confidence Assessment (PCA)

M-9

The Past Performance Confidence Assessment (PCA) represents the degree of confidence the evaluator has in a Contractor’s ability to provide the required services in the SOO based upon the information provided by the Contractor, the Contractor’s references (PPQ’s) and any information obtained from other sources. The resulting PCA is made at the factor level and represents the NAFI’s confidence that the Offerors can successfully execute requirements, considering recent, relevant, and quality performance in the Commercial Purchase Card Services industry.

Table M-3 - Past Performance Confidence Assessment Rating Chart

Substantial Confidence

Based on the offeror's recent/relevant performance record, there is a high expectation the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence

Based on the offeror's recent/relevant performance record, there is a reasonable expectation the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence

Based on the offeror's recent/relevant performance record, there is a low expectation the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence

Based on the offeror's recent/relevant performance record, there is no expectation the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

M.4. FACTOR 4 - COST/PRICE

The NAFI conducts cost/price analysis to ensure that all proposed costs/prices are realistic, fair, and reasonable. Pricing assumptions will also be evaluated to ascertain the level of understanding of the NAFI’s requirements and the degree of risk the Offeror’s assumptions pose to the NAFI.

Unreasonable prices are grounds for eliminating a proposal from the competition unless each contractor certify cost/price realism or offer bid bonds. Only contractor(s) with technically satisfactory ratings or greater will have their cost/price analyzed. This factor is analyzed but not rated.

M.4.1. Contractor will propose unit prices for Contract Line Item (CLIN) – 0001 thru 0003 IAW Section B of this solicitation. Pricing must be submitted for the three (3) base years and seven (7) option years to be eligible for award (see individual tabs in Section B). Total evaluated price will include the base and all option years.

M.4.2. REBATES

M.4.3. The NAFI will evaluate contractor’s rebate formula(s) in the spreadsheet proposal on rebate solutions. The rebate shall be based upon the purchase card spend volume and payment volume. The DAF NAFI pays Net 7 days volume rate for purchases. The offeror may propose a flat rate rebate or choose to offer a tiered separately priced

M-10 schedule based on different spending categories and those categories must be identified and listed the corresponding rebate percentage. Proposals shall be submitted using the historical data provided in Section C paragraph 2, as a baseline.

Proposal will be evaluated based upon realism and competitiveness of the offer.

M.4.4. Rebate proposal must contain the below elements as well as any other additional clarification and opportunities the offeror is proposing.

M.4.4.1. Explain how revenue is addressed.

M.4.4.2. How the total spending is segmented and provide details on how revenue based upon segmentation is done.

M.4.4.3. Provide examples of the rebate that is presented and calculated.

M.5. NOTICE OF AWARD

A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer mailed or otherwise furnished to the otherwise successful Offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer's specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer, whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

M.6. OFFER ACCEPTANCE PERIOD

The Government reserves the right to request additional extension on the acceptance period for offers beyond the number of days specified in the solicitation, as deemed necessary by the Contracting Officer. Any requests for extension of an offer acceptance period will be in writing to the Authorized Negotiator identified in Volume 1 – Contract Data.

(END OF SECTION M)