Evaluation_Factors_and_Instruction_10272017.pdf

Amendment A002 RFP GS-H-ID1418-P0013

Clarifications to the following questions and answers:

1. Questions and Answers 41, 110, 232 and 266 - Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) A draft QASP is required with proposal submission as outlined in See RFP Section 35.4 Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) and Evaluation Factor 4

2. Questions and Answers: 45, 61, 74, 75, 116, and 154 – Volume Three (3) Yes, volume is required and shall include a draft QASP and Certification and Representations

3. Questions and Answers: 29, 64 and 77 - Mapping of Executive Administrative Assistant II, Administrative Assistant and Supply Clerk

The labor categories should be mapped to the Wage Determination Occupational Codes as follows:

Administrative Assistant – 01020 Administrative Assistant Executive Administrative Assistant II – 01020 Administrative Assistant Secretary I – 01311 Secretary I Secretary II – 01312 Secretary II Secretary III – 01313 Secretary III Supply Clerk – 01410 Supply Technician

4. Revised Attachment 2 Labor Category Price Sheets are includes.

Revised Price Sheet for Washington DC – Wage Determination and Labor Category Price Sheet for Maryland Work will not be performed at Frederick County.

4. Below Evaluation Factors and instructions are attached.

5. Will the awarded bidder(s) fully burdened labor rates become part of the awarded contract? Yes And, if so, will the winning bidders (2) then be expected to compete for task orders that may result in those bidders having to further discount their contract FBLRs as a means of competition at the task order level? Yes

5. Proposal is extended to 4:00 PM EST, Friday, November 3, 2017.

Administrative Services RFP GSH1418P0013 Evaluation Procedures and Instructions to Offerors

FORMAT OF TECHNICAL PROPOSAL (VOLUME 1)

Offerors must prepare and deliver Proposals to the Contracting Officer as follows:

● The Technical Proposal is limited to thirty (30) 8.5x11 single pages or 15 double-sided pages. The following sections should be included with their associated limits within the 30 page limit:

1. Table of Contents (not included in page limit)

2. Technical Capability, Phase In Plan, Management and Staffing

Approach (maximum 30 pages)

3. Qualifications/Experience of Project Manager (maximum 3 pages per resume, not included in the 30 page limit )

4. Past Performance (maximum 1 pages narrative per project, page limit does not include the past performance questionnaire). At least three projects should be included with current contact information for those projects.

● If an Offeror’s Technical Proposal exceeds page limitation, only the first 30 pages total will be distributed to the technical evaluation on team for review, no exceptions.

● Minimum 10-point font size text single-spaced and page margins of at least 1 inch on the top, bottom and sides.

FORMAT FOR PRICE PROPOSAL (VOLUME 2)

The price proposal shall be a separate volume (see Attachment 2) from the technical Proposal. The price proposal is not included in the page limitation. There is no page limitation for price proposal. It shall be submitted with and at the same time as the technical proposal.

The reasonableness of the burdened fixed price hourly labor rates will be evaluated using price analysis techniques. Please provide your company’s federal tax identification number and your DUNs number on your pricing Quote.

Price proposal shall include in volume 2.

a. Price sheet in Attachment 2

b. Price Breakout of Offeror’s proposed prices

Both Technical and Price proposals shall be submitted at the same time to Contracting Officer, Carolyn Turner electronically via email to Carolyn.turner@gsa.gov.

The email subject shall reference the RFP # GSHID1418P0013 ADMIN.

QASP and OCRA (VOLUME THREE)

Volume three (3) shall include the following:

mailto:Carolyn.turner@gsa.gov

a. All of 52.212-3 or copy of ORCA Registration (this will not count toward page limits).

The ORCA Registration from SAM may be provided in lieu of 52.212- 3.

b. Draft Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) (No page limits)

52.212-2 -- Evaluation -- Commercial Items. (OCT 2014)

(a) The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered.

The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

The Government will evaluate proposals based on factors shown below. Technical Factors 1, 2, 3, and 4 will be evaluated to determine the technical acceptable or unacceptable. Any factor or element that is unacceptable will deem the proposal as unacceptable. Award will be made to the offerors that are determine lowest price technical acceptable.

Factor 1: Capability, Phase-In/M anagement/Staffing Approach Factor 2: Qualifications/Experience of Project Managers Factor 3: Past Performance Factor 4: Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) Factor 5: Price

(b) Options. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced.

Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

(c) A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the 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 (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

(End of Provision)

40.0 EVALUATION METHOD FOR AWARD

LOWEST PRICE TECHNICALLY ACCEPTABLE (LPTA)

This acquisition will utilize “Lowest Price Technically Acceptable” (LPTA) evaluation selection procedures in accordance with FAR Part 12.6. This is a competitive LPTA evaluation in which price is considered the most important factor. Award will be made on the basis of the lowest evaluated price of proposals meeting or exceeding the acceptability criteria for non-cost factors. All Offerors determined technically unacceptable will not be considered for award, and no further evaluation will be conducted. Failure to meet a requirementwill result in an offer being determined technically unacceptable and ineligible for award. The

Government intends to select TWO contractors for award of this requirement. Awards will be made to the two responsible offerors whose proposal conforms to all RFP requirements, such as general requirements, terms and conditions, and technical requirements. By submission of its offer, the Offeror accepts all RFP/SOW requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements.

40.1 EVALUATION CRITERIA

The Government may make a final determination as to whether the Offeror’s quotation is acceptable or unacceptable solely on the basis of the initial proposal as submitted. Offerors are advised to submit proposals that are fully and clearly acceptable without requests for additional information. However, the Government reserves the right to award no contract at all, depending on the quality of proposal(s) submitted and the availability of funds.

An evaluation rating of Technically Acceptable / Unacceptable will be assigned upon completion of the technical proposal evaluation. If an Offeror receives a technical rating of “Un- Acceptable in any Evaluation Factor” they will not be considered for an award.

The Government will evaluate the technical quotes for the purpose of assessing the Contractor’s ability to support the services with minimal risk and maximum efficiency. The Government shall evaluate proposals based on the evaluation criteria described below:

Definition of the Technical Factor Ratings:

Acceptable – Proposal that meets all of the Government’s requirements described under the RFP; satisfies the requisite knowledge and demonstrated experience in the specified areas of the tasks. The quote demonstrates solid, complete, and realistic understanding of the Government’s requirement for Administrative Services Support as described under the solicitation.

Unacceptable – The proposal fails to meet the stated requirements, indicates an unacceptable approach and does not demonstrate a solid and complete understanding of the Government’s requirement.

Factor 1: Capability, Phase-In/M a n a g e m e n t/Staffing Approach Offeror shall describe the firm’s capability and understanding for delivering the requirement outlined in the RFP. An understanding of this requirement is required from each Offeror. The contractor shall provide a Phase-In Plan as outlined in Section 10.2 of this solicitation as part of the management approach. The Phase-In Plan shall describe the method for staffing the proposed work. The staffing approach consisting of the processes, techniques and tools to be utilized to meet the Government’s desired staffing requirements per the Performance Work Statement (PWS). The factor considers the offerors proposed approach to recruiting, maintaining and employing staff for this contract. The offerors Phase-In Plan/Management and Staffing Approach shall be specific to this project and shall include a narrative describing the following:

a. Staffing Plan for the proposed work

b. Recruitment approach

c. Retention approach

d. Staff Orientation to the contractor’s corporate culture

e. Staff Retention policies Incentives/ Reward/Recognition approach

f. Staffing Replacement/Substitution

Specifically, the narrative should describe how an offeror plans to replace or hire additional staff, and how they will attract qualified employees. The Phase-In/management and staffing approach should describe how they will manage staffing, on-board and off boarding process.

Describe how they will manage a large volume of employees at multiple locations and approach on how to manage replacement and/or substitution of personnel due to absences such as call outs, same day substitution emergencies or death of an employee.

Standard for Evaluation The standard for Factor 1 is met when the offeror describe their capability and understanding for delivering the requirement outlined in the RFP; and proposes a detailed and specific phase-in plan/management/staffing plan on how they will recruit, retain, reward/recognize employees and replace/substitute staff under the solicitation. Failure to provide a plan detailing each of these factors may result in the offeror failing to fully meet the standard for this factor.

Factor 2: Qualifications/Experience of Project Manager(s) This factor considers the experience and qualifications of the proposed project manager(s) in the offerors project team. This factor considers the experience and qualifications of the proposed project manager(s) relative to employee management, recruitment efforts, development of questions for interviews, experience with the interview process, the authority to make decisions, experience in resolving performance issues and communication and management skills.

The resume should describe in detail:

a. Experience background, Education and Training, certifications

b. Project Manager(s) responsibility and authority to make decisions

c. How the Project Manager(s) will provide oversight of contract employees

d. How the Project Manager(s) will ensure communication with the Government

Resumes shall be directly attributable to the name on the resume.

Standard for Evaluation The standard for Factor 2 is fully met when an offeror provides detailing the authority, roles and responsibilities of each proposed project manager. The resume shall also describe the experience of the Project Manager in recruiting, interviewing, hiring, etc; the authority and responsibility to make decisions, how the Project Manager will provide oversight of contractor employees and how they will ensure communications with the Government.

Resume for the Project Manager(s) shall also describe related job experience and clearly demonstrate at least 3 years of experience within the last 5 years of direct supervision of other employees.

Factor 3: Past Performance (Questionnaire found in Attachment 7) This factor considers the quality of the prime offeror’s past performance under current and prior contracts, within the last 5 years, in performing similar contracts for similar services with consideration of technical success and customer satisfaction. This factor also considers the quality of the offerors performance in carrying out the required work, specifically, quality and timeliness of services provided, the ability to recruit and retain qualified employees and other business relations.

Note: If the offeror is a joint venture, the past performance submitted can come from either firm in the joint venture. If the offeror is the prime contractor and intend to subcontract portions of the work, the past performance must be directly attributable to the prime offeror only.

Each offeror is responsible for providing the questionnaire (provided by the government) to three (3) references of their choosing. The Offeror’s evaluator shall send the Past Performance Questionnaire to the contracting officer via email. References shall demonstrate ability to provide quality and timely service for similar scope and complexity requirements, shall demonstrate ability to recruit and retain qualified employees, and demonstrate ability to maintain successful business relationships.

If the offeror does not have any established past performance, the offeror will be given a neutral rating and will not be evaluated favorable or unfavorable for this factor. If more than three references are provided, the Government will only evaluate the first three references provided.

Note: For purposes of determining what are similar services and similar scope requirements, the reference shall include projects in which similar positions and quantities have been provided for as in this solicitation (administrative, clerical, professional and/or technical positions). A project will be deemed similar when based on consensus judgement of the evaluating board members; the project has enough similarities in common with this particular solicitation.

Standard for Evaluation The standard for Factor 2 is met when the offeror submits three (3) past performance questionnaires for which the offeror has provided similar services as this solicitation within the last 5 years, and receives a satisfactory rating on each factor. Any unsatisfactory ratings on either of the three references will result in the offeror failing to fully meet the standard for this factor.

“Past Performance” - Ratings and their meanings are as follows:

Satisfactory – The Offeror’s performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

Unsatisfactory – The Offeror’s performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely to occur or did not occur in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains a serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

Neutral - In situations where the Contractor does not have record of past performance or the quote will receive a neutral rating.

Factor 4: Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) This factor considers the offerors proposed approach to contract management and meeting the requirements detailed in the Request for Proposal as outlined in Section 35.4 Attachment 4. The offerors draft QASP should be specific to this solicitation and shall include a narrative describing the following:

a. How the offeror intends to monitor the work output in relations to performance standards

b. How the offeror will ensure acceptable quality of service is received

c. How they will work to pro-actively prevent performance issues, and resolve performance issues when they arise

Standard for Evaluation The standard for Factor 4 is met when the offeror submits a draft QASP that is specific to this solicitation and describes in detail how they plan to meet the requirements of this solicitation, including, but not limited to, how offeror intends to monitor the work output, ensure the Government will receive quality service, and will work to prevent and resolve performance issues. Failure to identify these issues will result in the offeror failing to fully meet the standard for this factor.

Factor 4: PRICE Price will be evaluated based to determine reasonableness. Reasonableness will be established by the existence of adequate price competition. The total evaluated bid price;

however, they will be evaluated for fair and reasonableness. Reasonableness of these prices will be determined by considering the offerors bid price in comparison with independent government cost estimate, and applicable DOL wage determinations and other competitive prices received.

BASIS OF AWARD

Award will be made to the technically acceptable, lowest priced proposal. The Government will evaluate the Contractor's technical proposal and make a determination of the Contractor's ability to fully meet the technical requirements stated herein. Prices will be evaluated in the aggregate for both the base and optional years. Contractors shall submit their proposal on an overall annual firm-fixed price basis for each of the labor categories in Attachment 2. The Government intends to make an award without further discussions; therefore, Contractors are strongly encouraged to include the best available terms and pricing in their initial offer.

Format of Technical Proposal;

Offeror shall submit their proposal in the following order

Volume I

• SF1449 and SF30 signed (not included in page limits)

• Table of Content (not included in page limits)

• Factor 1: Capability, Phase-In/M anagement/Staffing Approach (30 pages limitation)

• Factor 2: Qualifications/Experience of Project Managers (3 pages per resume)

• Factor 3: Past Performance (Maximum 3 pages – One narrative page for each past performance project)

Volume II

• Factor 5: Price

Volume III

• Factor 4: Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) (No page limits)

• OCRA – Certification and Representation (No page limits)