Amendment_02_Combined_Synopsis_Solicitation_A15054.rtf

RFP A15054

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL #A15054

SENIOR EXECUTIVE SERVICE CANDIDATE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

PART I - SUMMARY

1. This is a combined Synopsis/Solicitation for commercial items prepared in accordance with the format in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 12.6 as supplemented with additional information included in this notice. This announcement constitutes the only solicitation; proposals are being requested and a written solicitation will not be issued.

2. Solicitation Number: #15054

3. This Synopsis/Solicitation is issued as a Request for Proposals (RFP)

4. Provisions and clauses in effect through Federal Acquisition Circular FAC 05-72

5. A notice regarding any set-aside: No set-aside used. However, it is the position of the Department of the Treasury and all of its Bureaus to afford maximum practical opportunities for small businesses to participate in their procurements. As such, small businesses are encouraged to explore this opportunity and consider competing. Similarly, Treasury encourages large businesses that wish to compete to purchase from, utilize, and otherwise involve small business in the fulfillment of this requirement. Teaming arrangements are encouraged.

6. NAICS Code: 611430

7. Size Standard: N/A

8. Statement regarding the Small Business Competitiveness Demonstration Program, if applicable: N/A

9. Contract Line Item Number(s) (CLINs) and items, quantities and units of measure: See Attachment D Price Submission Worksheet

10. Description of requirements for the items/services to be acquired: See Attachment A Statement of Objectives (SOO).

11. Date(s) Delivery: Service shall commence within 30 days of contract award unless otherwise stated.

12. Place(s) of Delivery and Acceptance: See Attachment A Statement of Objectives (SOO).

13. The provision at FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors - Commercial, applies to this acquisition. See below for addendum.

14. The provision at FAR 52.212-2, Evaluation - Commercial Items, applies to this acquisition. See below for addendum.

15. Defense Priorities and Allocations System (DPAS) and assigned rating, is not applicable.

16. Responses for this RFP are due at 4pm EST May 25 26, 2015.

17. The name and telephone number of the individual to contact for information regarding the solicitation: Mark C. Green, Contracting Officer (CO), 240-613-8444.

18. Attachments:

Attachment A - Statement of Objectives Attachment B - Treasury SES CDP Implementation Plan OPM Oct 2014 Attachment C - SES CDP Issuance Notice TN-11-007 Attachment D - Price Submission Worksheet Attachment E – Past Performance Questionnaire

19. Additional Information: Be advised that all interested parties must be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) Database in order to receive an award. If you are not registered you may request an application through the SAM website at http://www.sam.gov.

PART II - EVALUATION

This section identifies how a winner will be selected.

Proposals shall be evaluated on a best value basis that allows for a tradeoff between price and non-price related factors. The Government will award a single contract resulting from this RFP to the responsible Offeror whose offer conforming to the RFP will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

Technical

Past Performance

Price

Factors 1, 2, and 3 above are listed in descending order of importance with Factor 1 being the most important factor, and Factor 2 being more important than Factor 3.

An award will be made to the firm whose proposal provides the best overall value to Treasury. The Office of Procurement will not select an offer for award on the basis of a superior capability without concern for the amount of its price. The importance of price will increase as the difference in other factors decrease. The Government reserves the right to form a competitive range to facilitate proposal evaluation.

Proposals rated “unacceptable” for any of the Factors are NOT eligible for award and will be excluded from further consideration. Offerors will be notified in the event that their proposals are eliminated from consideration.

FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL FACTOR: The Offeror will be evaluated on its ability to demonstrate a CLEAR AND COMPLETE:

understanding of the SES CDP regulatory requirements described more fully in 5 C.F.R. § 412.302(c);

plan to perform and accomplish all deliverables, work products, and the requirements identified in the Statement of Objectives (SOO) and the SES CDP regulations; and knowledge of best practices for program and curriculum design, creation, delivery, and continuous improvement specifically for the elements listed in (1) and (2).

Further, the Offeror will be evaluated based on the detailed description of how the Offeror will perform and accomplish each of the SOO requirements and the SES CDP regulatory requirements, and the appropriateness of all proposed methods and analyses. The Offeror shall fully describe and demonstrate the technical expertise and qualifications, technical understanding, and approach to accomplish the requirements specified in the SOO and the regulations governing the SES CDP.

Factor 1 will be evaluated using the ratings below:

Rating Description Outstanding Proposal greatly exceeds requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains significant strengths and no weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Good Proposal exceeds requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains significant strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Acceptable 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. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more significant weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable Proposal clearly does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is unawardable.

For the purpose of this solicitation, terms are defined below:

A “significant strength” is a significant, outstanding, or exceptional aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that has merit and exceeds the specified performance or capability requirements in a way beneficial to the Government, and either will be included in the contract or is inherent in the Offeror’s process.

A “strength” is an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that has merit and meets the specified performance or capability requirements in a way beneficial to the Government, and either will be included in the contract or is inherent in the Offeror’s process.

A “weakness” means 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.

A “deficiency” is 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.

FACTOR 2: Past Performace: The past performance evaluation shall consider the Offeror’s demonstrated record of performance in providing services that meet the customer’s needs during the past three (3) years from date of issuance of this solicitation. The Government will evaluate past performance information of three (3) past or present customers for whom they have performed the same or similar services. The Government will evaluate the degree of relevancy between each Offeror’s past performance information and the solicitation requirements. In assessing the relevancy, the Government will evaluate the degree of similarity in size, scope, and complexity between an Offeror’s past performance information and the work anticipated to fulfill the SOO. The potential for disruption to schedule, increase in cost, or degradation in quality of performance based on the Offeror’s past performance will also be evaluated as well as whether an Offeror has consistently demonstrated a commitment to customer satisfaction and complied with federal regulations and relevant policy. Lack of relevant past performance or lack of sufficient past performance information will result in the assignment of a neutral rating. A neutral rating indicates neither a favorable nor unfavorable evaluation for this factor. If past performance as a subcontractor is submitted, relevancy will be evaluated as to the work that the Offeror did under its subcontract, not the entire scope of work as performance by the prime contractor. Additionally, the Government will review records contained in the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) to assess the likelihood that an Offeror can successfully perform the required work. The Government reserves the right to contact and use information provided by the references available in PPIRS while conducting past performance evaluations.

Factor 2 will be evaluated using the ratings below:

RATING DESCRIPTION

DEFINITIONS

Excellent – Low Risk Highly relevant past performance record managing contracts similar in size, scope, and complexity to the solicitation requirements. Little or no potential exists for disruption of schedule, increase in cost, or degradation in quality of performance based on the Offeror’s past performance.

Good – Low to Moderate Risk Highly relevant past performance record managing contracts of similar size, scope and complexity to the solicitation requirements. Some potential exists for disruption of schedule, increase in cost, or degradation in quality of performance based on the Offeror’s past performance.

Marginal – Moderate Risk Somewhat relevant past performance record managing contracts of similar size, scope and complexity to the solicitation requirements. Some potential exists for disruption of schedule, increase in cost, or degradation in quality of performance based on the Offeror’s past performance.

Unacceptable – High Risk Highly relevant, or somewhat relevant past performance record may exist. Significant potential exists for disruption of schedule, increase in cost, or degradation in quality of performance based on the Offeror’s past performance.

Neutral No record of relevant past performance exists or past performance history is not available

FACTOR 3 PRICE: The Office of Procurement will use the Total Evaluated Price automatically computed in Attachment A Price Submission Worksheet Price as the basis for price comparison. PROPOSALS THAT ONLY INCLUDE PRICING FOR A PORTION OF THE CONTRACT LINE ITEM NUMBERS (CLINS) WILL BE CONSIDERED INCOMPLETE AND WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED FOR AWARD. The Government will evaluate the pricing for accuracy, completeness, and the CO will determine if the total evaluated price is reasonable.

Price will be evaluated but not assigned an adjectival rating.

OVERALL PROPOSAL RATING

A technical evaluation team, using the adjectival rating for each factor (excluding price), will determine a cumulative overall rating as defined in the chart below.

Rating Description Outstanding Proposal greatly exceeds requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains significant strengths and no weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Good Proposal exceeds requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains significant strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Acceptable 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. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more significant weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable Proposal clearly does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is unawardable.

AWARD DECISION

Decision to award or not will be made by applying the overall proposal rating stated above and Price, consistent with the stated Best Value Basis.

The Government reserves the right to award the contract without discussions. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the CO determines them to be necessary. Offerors may be required to meet in Washington, D.C. to conduct these discussions.

PART III INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

This section identifies the information the Contractor must provide in its response to this RFP.

COMMUNICATIONS

Questions arising from interpreting the specification, terms or conditions, instructions or evaluation criteria concerning this solicitation may be submitted by email to the CO by 4pm EST May 4, 2015. Questions shall state in the subject line “RFP #A15054 Senior Executive Service Candidate Development Program.” When submitting questions and comments, please refer to the specific text of the RFP in the following format:

Answers to questions submitted will be combined into an amendment to the solicitation, and posted to FedBizOpps. Questions may be submitted via email to: Mark.Green2@irs.gov.

The Office of Procurement may not respond to questions received after the deadline stated above. Questions will not be answered via telephone. No other channel of communication between the firm and an officer, employee, or agent of the Treasury regarding this RFP is permitted, and no information gained from any such communication may be considered in any way binding or limiting on the Office of Procurement.

PROPOSAL PREPARATION GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

Unnecessarily elaborate proposals beyond that sufficient to present a complete and effective proposal are not desired. Offerors shall confine their submission to essential matters, sufficient to define their offer, and provide an adequate basis for evaluation. Likewise, Offerors are cautioned against general, vague, or unsubstantiated statements, which prevent or render difficult the Government’s evaluation of the proposal. Statements such as "will comply," or "noted and understood" without supporting narrative to define compliance may cause an Offeror to be evaluated as unacceptable. Moreover, the Government will not assume that an Offeror possesses any capability, understanding, and/or commitment that is not specifically delineated and supported in its respective proposal. Proposals submitted for consideration for award must address the full scope of the solicitation. Proposals which address only part of the solicitation will be considered unacceptable.

Maximum proposal page count, not counting title page, table of contents, acronym list, tabs, and provided price spreadsheet: 25 (twenty-five) 35 (thirty-five) pages. Pages beyond that will be removed prior to evaluation.

In the event an Offeror provides a proposal that is printed or copied double-sided on paper pursuant to FAR clause 52.204-4, each side of the paper shall represent one page.

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS –

Format

Volumes. The Offeror’s proposal shall be composed of a technical volume and price volume, each bound in a three-ring loose leaf binder not to exceed 2”. Offeror shall not exceed the maximum page limitations set forth. Any pages exceeding the maximum page limitation will not be evaluated by the Government. A cover sheet shall be bound in each loose leaf binder, clearly marked with Volume title (technical, price), RFP number, and Offeror’s name and shall contain, at a minimum, information specified below (if applicable):

Cover Sheet;

Table of Contents;

Acronym List;

Glossary;

Format. The proposals shall be prepared using the following format:

Use 8.5”x11” size paper, single spaced (doubled spaced between paragraphs) and single-sided;

Use 1” margins all around;

Text shall be no smaller than 12 point font;

Font style and size for illustrations, drawings, and tables are at the Offeror’s discretion, but all labels and markings must be easily readable. Color may be used at the discretion of the Offeror.

Every page, except for the Title Page, shall contain a page number. Blank pages will contain the marking “Page Intentionally Left Blank”. Every page will contain the Offeror’s name and the RFP number. It is the Offeror’s responsibility to ensure data considered sensitive is marked as such. These markings may appear only in the margins;

The Offeror shall include the point of contact (name, telephone number, e-mail address, and fax number) that can assist the CO with questions/problems associated with the Offeror’s submission.

A cover letter signed by an individual authorized to commit the company to the proposal shall be submitted with the Offeror’s proposal. This person must have the authority to commit the Offeror to all of the terms and conditions of the contract. The cover letter is for informational purposes only, does not count towards the page limitations, and will not be evaluated. The cover letter shall include the following:

Solicitation Number

negotiations Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) number

Name of your contract administration office (if available) Date of submission A statement specifying agreement with all terms, conditions, and provisions included in this RFP Note: You must fill out and return the provision “1052.209-71-- Representation by Rorporations Regarding a Unpaid Federal Tax Liability or Conviction of a Felony Criminal Violation under Federal Law.” This provision is found in PART IV – PROVISIONS AND CLAUSES below.

PROPOSAL ORGANIZATION

VOLUME 1

Part I.

Executive Summary. This section shall include a brief summary of the Offeror’s capability to accomplish the requirements of the contract. Include here the cover letter requested above, and signed copies of all amendments to the solicitation acknowledging their receipt. This section is NOT included in the page count.

Part II.

Factor: 1 Technical. The Offeror shall provide a Statement of Work (SOW), along with other information, narrative, and/or data, if applicable, to substantiate that their service meets or exceeds each requirement of the SOO relevant to this factor. This section is included in the page count. Offeror shall also prove resumes of three (3) key personnel as discussed in Attachment A Statement of Objectives Section 6.5. Each resume shall not exceed 2 pages. Resumes will not be included in the page count.

Part III.

Factor: 2 Past Performance. The Offeror shall document its relevant past performance by identifying a maximum of three (3) of its most relevant contracts within the past three (3) years. Offerors should provide a detailed explanation of the relevance of the listed contracts to the requirements of this solicitation. Relevance is defined as contracts that are similar in size, scope, and complexity. Ensure that accurate and concise information is provided for each contract including:

Additionally and for each reference listed, the Offeror shall provide a Past Performance Questionnaire as provided in Attachment C. The Offeror shall send out and track the completion of the Past Performance Questionnaires. Each of the Offeror’s POCs shall email its completed Past Performance Questionnaire directly to the COs at