RFQ 8326 LTIS4 Cover Letter draft.pdf

REQUEST FOR QUOTE (RFQ) 8326

LONG TERM INTEGRATION SUPPORT 4 (LTIS 4)

Date: June 17, 2024

Notice to GSA Multiple Award Schedule (MAS) 54151S Small Disadvantage Business (SDB) Vendors

Amendment Number: N/A

Subject: LTIS4 Support

Project Scope:

The scope involves program and project integration; supporting various program and project activities with technical analyses and reviews; supporting process improvement and adherence; understanding impacts of the integrated IMF Modernization system, its components, and projects; data gathering and compilation of data into presentations or artifacts; providing program integration support that would include interfacing with and supporting Delivery Partners; and coordinating deployment of newly developed capabilities

The following are pertinent facts regarding this RFQ:

Contract Type(s): Hybrid: Firm Fixed Price/Labor

Anticipated Period of Performance:

Base Period: December 1, 2024 - November 30, 2025 Option Period 1: December 1, 2025 - November 30, 2026 Option Period 2: December 1, 2026 - November 30, 2027 Option Period 3: December 1, 2027 - November 30, 2028 Option Period 4: December 1, 2028 - November 30, 2029

Location of Performance: Primary Offeror’s facility/telework eligible. Government’s facility is located at 5000 Ellin Rd, Lanham, MD 20706

Security Requirements: An IRS Background Investigation is required to perform on this contract.

Contractor personnel must be able to travel to a government site at the government’s discretion without incurring billable travel costs.

Contractual History:

Customer Account Data Engine 2 (CADE2)/LTIS3 program solutions have been provided by Deloitte Consulting, LLP since 2020 under Alliant 2 Government Wide Acquisition Contract (GWAC) contract number 2032H5-21-F-00043.

NAICS Code identified for this acquisition is 541512.

Site Visit:N/A Pre-Quote Conference: N/A

NOTICE: The Government intends to utilize nongovernment advisors to provide source selection support for this requirement. Employees of the IRS’s Federally Funded Research and Development

DRAFT

RFQ 8326

Center, the MITRE Corporation, will participate as non-voting members of the technical evaluation panel.

MITRE Corporation members will be given access to proprietary or source selection information in accordance with FAR Subpart 9.505-4(b).

Questions on Request for Quote (RFQ):

If you have any questions, please submit them to the Contracting Officer (CO) via email to Daffeney L.

Wilson at daffeney.l.wilson@irs.gov by June 27, 2024, 3:00pm Eastern Time. Questions submitted after this date will not be responded to unless it is in the best interest of the Government.

The Government will compile all questions and responses and provide them to all responding Offerors via the GSA eBuy System. The only method by which any terms of the RFQ may be modified is by an amendment to be generated by the CO. No other communications made, whether oral or in writing (e.g., Industry Questions & Answers prior to response closing date and time, clarifications, etc.), will modify or supersede the terms of the RFQ.

Past Performance Questionnaires:

The offeror shall complete the top portion only of the attached (Attachment 3) Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) with the names and contact information of their past performance references associated with the same projects that are described in the offeror’s technical response for Factor 5 “Past Performance”. The Offeror shall distribute the PPQ to the point of contact for each contract example provided. The offeror shall ensure that contact information provided for each reference is current and accurate. All completed PPQs shall be submitted via email to Contracting Officer (CO) Daffeney L.

Wilson at daffeney.l.wilson@irs.gov no later than the quote due date and time.

Quotation Submittal Instructions Technical and Price Quote Due Date: TBD; Quotation will be accepted in response to the draft solicitation Submit to: GSA eBuy System

All quotes must remain valid 180 days. When responding to this RFQ, in addition to the other instructions/requirements in this document, the offeror must provide a technical and separate price quote to be compliant with submission. Pages in excess of stated page limitations will not be evaluated.

Quotes received after the due date and time will not be considered.

Submittal Format:

Responses shall be forwarded as separate files (contract documentation, technical, and price). Offerors shall submit one (1) original copy and one (1) redacted copy of Volume 1, Volume 2, and Volume 3. All information identifying the Offeror and its points of contact shall be removed from the redacted copy of the quotation. Failure to provide a redacted version of the quote may result in removal of the quote from consideration by the Agency without evaluation. Due to system limitations of 10MBs, we are no longer able to accept zip files from external sources. Responses shall be sent in either MS Word, Adobe Acrobat (.pdf), or MS Excel attachments, as appropriate. All narrative shall be typed in Times New Roman 12-point font size. Text will be single spaced and separation between paragraphs shall be double spaced. All formulas shall be visible on all calculated values on spreadsheets. For illustrations, drawings, and tables a 10-point font size is required. All labels and markings must be easily readable. Color may be used at the discretion of the Offeror. Foldout pages are not permitted unless otherwise stated herein. The term “page” above refers to an 8.5 x 11 standard size page. Margins shall be 1-inch top, bottom, left, and right side.

mailto:daffeney.l.wilson@irs.gov

Instructions to Offerors:

Conflict of Interest Any contractor (or member of its team (and /or subcontractor) having a conflict of interest as defined under FAR 9.5 must identify the conflict as soon as it is known and provide a recommended mitigation plan. Mitigation plans are required whenever a competing contractor has had unequal access to non-public information regarding the Task Order (TO) requirement or has assisted the Government in defining the TO requirements or evaluation criteria.

General: This acquisition is being conducted under FAR 8.4; therefore, the contracting techniques under FAR 15.3 do not apply. As such, the government is not obligated to determine a competitive range, conduct interchanges with all contractors, or solicit final revised quotes. Offerors will be required to provide a price and technical quote in accordance with the instructions herein.

Offerors shall not include TIN or EIN numbers on any page other than the cover page. The cover page shall not exceed one (1) page. No documents or data shall be password protected.

Response shall be submitted as four (4) separate files:

Volume Content

PHASE 1

1 Factor 1 – Corporate Experience (10-page limit) Cover Page (1-page limit) Attachment 1 – Fill-in Provisions and Clauses (No page limit)

PHASE 2

(Suggested only for offerors selected to that passed Phase 1 and were invited to Phase 2) 2 Factor 2 – Technical Approach (25-page limit) 2 Factor 3 – Management Approach (10-page limit) 3 Factor 4 – Past Performance (8-page limit) 4 Factor 5 – Price Quote (No page limit)

Volume 1: Corporate Experience, Cover Letter, and Fill-in Provisions Clauses

Factor 1 Corporate Experience:

The offeror shall provide the information indicated below for at least three (3) contracts of its own experience. If the offeror is including a teaming partner, the offeror shall provide at least a minimum of two (2) contracts of its own experience and one of its teaming partners(s) for a maximum of three contracts, with the inclusion of its businesses commitment partners that are similar in size, scope, and complexity to the requirements listed in Performance Work Statement (PWS) Section 4.0 Skill Requirements. The corporate experience reference must be within five (5) years of the submission deadline in this RFQ. The offeror’s project profiles must demonstrate application of knowledge and expertise in the areas listed in the PWS.

For each contract listed, provide the government (Federal/State Only) manager or Contract Officer Representative (COR) who can best address the contract work performed. Identify an alternate for each.

Contract number (and task order number, if applicable) Client (government) agency/company For each agreement/contract listed, provide the government manager or contracting officer representative (COR)/company point of contact (POC) who can best address the contract work performed. Identify an alternate for each:

• Name and address of the government manager or COR/company POC

• Name, telephone numbers (both voice and fax if known) and e-mail address (if known) for a primary and alternate person as POC

• Period of performance (mm/dd/yyyy - mm/dd/yyyy)

• Contract type

• Narrative shall include:

• Description of supplies delivered and/or services performed.

• How it is similar or equal to the LTIS 4 PWS size, scope, and complexity

• Contract work scope and responsibilities

• Description of how these contract efforts are like this proposed contract effort in relation to the capabilities, knowledge, and skills listed in the PWS.

• Experience that has an estimated/actual program level scope that includes legacy systems modernization and skills that includes 3 – 5 large multi- year projects with an available pool greater than or equal to 500 resources will be considered.

Cover Letter The Offeror’s submitted quote shall include a transmittal letter on the Offeror’s letterhead signed by an executive of the company who possesses authority to contractually bind the Offeror. The letter shall provide the name, title, phone number and e-mail address of the Offeror’s principal point of contact for the solicitation and identify those individuals authorized to negotiate with the Government and contractually bind the Offeror. The letter shall include the following information:

• Reference the RFQ number and acknowledge that it transmits an offer in response to the

• requirements as stated in the solicitation,

• Identify all attachments and enclosures being transmitted as part of the response to the RFQ,

• List all subcontractors identified in the Offeror’s submitted quote,

• A statement that the submitted quote is valid for at least 180 calendar days after the date established for receipt of offers.

• Each page containing proprietary information should be so marked.

• Provide the following information pertaining to the Offeror:

o Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) number o Unique Entity Identification (UEI) Number o Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) o Address(es) of the location(s) at which the Offeror intends to perform the proposed effort

If no Organizational Conflict of Interest exists, then the Offeror shall clearly state this in its cover letter.

If the submitted quote contains a “contractor team arrangement” as defined in FAR 9.601, provide information that describes the contractor team arrangement to include any information that will help the Government understand the contractor team arrangement purpose and benefit.

The cover letter shall not contain any information regarding the vendor’s technical quote. If technical information is included in the cover letter, it will not be considered when evaluating the technical factors of the quote.

Attachment 1 - Fill in Provisions and Clauses Offerors must complete and submit the fill-in provisions/clauses within PWS Attachment 1 as part of the response of the RFQ (This will not be counted against any page limits).

Volume 2: Technical Approach and Management Approach

Factor 2 – Technical Approach The Offeror shall describe their technical approach for completing the work in the PWS. The technical approach shall reference each “task” in the PWS and provide the Offeror’s response to each task. Address technical/management risk by identifying those aspects of the quotation considered to have the potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost, poor performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and/or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. Describe the impact of each identified risk in terms of its potential to interfere with or prevent the successful accomplishment of other contract requirements. Propose a realistic "work-around" or risk mitigators for identified risks that will eliminate or reduce risk to an acceptable level. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s understanding of the work to be performed in accordance with the PWS. The Offeror shall submit a quotation that demonstrates its understanding of the work described in the PWS and the extent to which potential risks are identified and mitigated. The Offeror’s quotation shall outline an effective, efficient, achievable approach for accomplishing the work to be performed by PWS within the timeline specified by the performance periods. (25-page limit).

Factor 3 – Management Approach The Offeror shall describe and illustrate their experience and management approaches (risk, communication, performance, program, and quality) relating to the task order to effectively manage the project schedule, costs, and deliverables. The management approach must specifically describe the Offerors plan to ensure that quality products and services are delivered, to include how they will address IRS priorities for the IMF, PMO LTIS 4 going forward.

The Offeror’s approach shall address the requirements in the section of the PWS to provide a Staffing Plan. If the Offeror proposes teaming arrangements, a copy of the teaming arrangement is required to be included with quote submission. The management approach shall explain to what extent team members will be involved in the performance of the proposed tasks, identify the functional area for which they will be responsible, and describe how the Offeror will manage the team member participation. The Contractor shall also address in their management approach each deliverable requirement identified throughout the

PWS.

The Offeror’s approach must also demonstrate that the Key Personnel have the relevant skill sets as listed in (PWS Section 4.0 Skill Requirements) and experience to successfully execute the Offeror’s technical approach as identified in the PWS. The relevance, amount and duration of the experience are important.

Relevant experience is defined as work experience that is similar in size, scope, and complexity to that outlined in the PWS. The Offeror shall also demonstrate the ability to offer qualified personnel by providing resumes (not to exceed 2 pages each) for the key personnel listed in the PWS (Section 4.0), to include the proposed employees’ educational background, work history for the last three years, and references. Proposed key personnel will be evaluated based upon their experience with contracts/projects similar in size, scope, and complexity and the relevant skill sets listed in PWS section 4.1. Resumes do count toward the page limitation. For each Key Personnel member, a letter of commitment (1 page per member) shall be provided to ensure the proposed individuals will remain after award. Letters of commitment will not count toward the page limitation.

The Offerors shall also detail the staffing plan to demonstrate their approach to effectively staff the project and manage all resources assigned to the task order in support of the PWS. This includes the Offerors recruitment plan (tools used, partner network, internal process, etc.). How key personnel will be utilized and if additional qualifications are proposed that are beneficial.

Vendors must immediately inform the contracting officer of any changes in the availability of proposed key personnel if any individual proposed for such a position becomes unavailable between the deadline for quote submissions and prior to TO award. Prior to making award(s) the Agency will confirm with all vendors potentially eligible for an award that all key personnel of that vendor’s quote are still available. If any key person has become unavailable the vendor will be permitted to revise its quote ONLY with regards to the key personnel who have become unavailable with the submission of a new individual for that position. Vendors are cautioned that any substitutions of key personnel after the deadline for submission of quotes may result in a reduction of the vendor’s technical evaluation.

The Offeror shall also detail tasks/functions and skill sets will be performed by teaming agreements and how it will be integrated within the overall management processes. (10-page limit).

Volume 3: Past Performance

Factor 4 – Past Performance The Offeror shall provide recent and relevant past performance for each corporate experience project profile referenced in Factor 1: Corporate Experience. The Offeror’s relevant experience will be evaluated based on the Offeror’s experience with projects similar in size, scope and complexity to the requirements listed within PWS. The past performance reference must be within five (5) years of the submission deadline in this RFQ. The offeror’s project profiles must demonstrate application of knowledge and expertise in the areas listed in the PWS. (8-page limit; 2 pages per reference).

Volume 4: Price Quote Template

Factor 5: Price Offeror shall submit as Attachment 4, Price Quote Template, in Microsoft Excel format. Formulas used in the calculations shall be left in the tables. All MS Excel files must have formulas clearly evident, editable, and functioning. MS Excel spreadsheets must be linked to other cells within the same workbook or worksheet (e.g., labor = hours x labor rate). All columns shall be completed and totaled to include the summation of the total Task Order value (Based plus all options).

Provide a current copy of the Offeror’s GSA MAS 54151S contractor rates with the quote.

The Price Summary shall contain the following Sections:

The proposed price summary shall be provided in the format included as Attachment 4, Price Quote Template. The attached price quote template is only a suggestion. The Offeror shall address all elements of price applicable to the proposed effort to include a narrative.

The Offeror shall provide the following as described in the section below:

FFP and LH breakdown for all CLINs, and total Travel Cost amounts.

All excel formulas shall be traceable in the table and all columns shall be completed to include summations.

If known at the time of quote submission each subcontractor’s full name, address, phone number and internet address, if applicable, shall be included in the price quote narrative or explanatory notes. Offers shall comply with the requirements of FAR 15.404-3(b) or provide any subcontract agreements already negotiated to support subcontractor’s rates. If subcontractors do not want to provide you information for their quotes, that information shall be sent directly to the Contracting Officer with reference to the prime’s quote.

Discounts are encouraged, Offeror shall identify all discounts, and the proposed price elements shall not exceed the GSA MAS 54151S rates. The Offeror shall clearly identify the GSA MAS 54151S labor category names and associated labor category numbers so that Government can verify the proposed rates against the GSA MAS 54151S. Each offeror shall identify in its quotes which labor categories are performed by the prime or subcontractor.

All proposed pricing and GSA MAS 54151S rates provided by the Offeror shall be fully burdened (inclusive of overhead and profit). Prices proposed shall be in U.S. dollars. The Offeror’s price shall represent their best price in response to the RFQ.

Offeror is reminded that the staff proposed in the technical submittal must be the same staff proposed in the price submittal for the Key Personnel labor categories.

ODC Travel These costs exclusively represent travel costs. For quote purposes, the estimated base amounts for support costs have been pre-established and specified in PQT. The proposed amount for the ODC Travel CLIN identified in PQT, are inclusive of the Offeror's proposed markup costs, which will be used for evaluation purposes.

The proposed ODC Travel Costs shall equal the NTE listed in the PQT. Fee shall not be applied to ODC Travel.

The offeror shall propose the price associated with the extension under FAR 52.217-8. For this price, the offeror shall propose 50% of option period four of the task order (No Page Limit).

Proposed CLIN Structure:

CLIN 0001: Transition-In: Task 2 Program, Project, and Release Management, Task 3 IMF Modernization Executive Support, Task 4 Architecture and Engineering Support, Task 5 Solution Engineering Support, Task 6 IMF Modernization Testing Support, Task 7: Subtask 3.7A Development Integration, Task 8 Cybersecurity, Task 9 Environments Integration, Task 11 Project Scheduling (FFP)

**POP: 12/01/2024 – 02/28/2025

CLIN 0002: Task 2 Program, Project, and Release Management, Task 3 IMF Modernization Executive Support, Task 4 Architecture and Engineering Support, Task 5 Solution Engineering Support, Task 6 IMF Modernization Testing Support, Task 7: Subtask 3.7A Development Integration, Task 8 Cybersecurity, Task 9 Environments Integration, Task 11 Project Scheduling (FFP)

**POP: 3/1/2025 – 11/30/2025

CLIN 0003: Task 2 Program, Project, and Release Management, Task 3 IMF Modernization Executive Support, Task 4 Architecture and Engineering Support, Task 5 Solution Engineering Support, Task 6 IMF Modernization Testing Support, Task 7: Subtask 3.7A Development Integration, Task 7: Subtask 3.7B Vendor Built/Driven Development Support, Task 8 Cybersecurity, Task 9 Environments Integration, Task 10 Business Tools and Technologies, Tasks 11 Project Scheduling - Optional (LH)

CLIN 0004: Travel - NTE

CLIN 1002: Task 2 Program, Project, and Release Management, Task 3 IMF Modernization Executive Support, Task 4 Architecture and Engineering Support, Task 5 Solution Engineering Support, Task 6 IMF Modernization Testing Support, Task 7: Subtask 3.7A Development Integration, Task 8 Cybersecurity, CLIN 1003: Task 2 Program, Project, and Release Management, Task 3 IMF Modernization Executive Support, Task 4 Architecture and Engineering Support, Task 5 Solution Engineering Support, Task 6 IMF Modernization Testing Support, Task 7: Subtask 3.7A Development Integration, Task 7: Subtask 3.7B

CLIN 1004: Travel - NTE

CLIN 2002: Task 2 Program, Project, and Release Management, Task 3 IMF Modernization Executive Support, Task 4 Architecture and Engineering Support, Task 5 Solution Engineering Support, Task 6 IMF Modernization Testing Support, Task 7: Subtask 3.7A Development Integration, Task 8 Cybersecurity, CLIN 2003: Task 2 Program, Project, and Release Management, Task 3 IMF Modernization Executive Support, Task 4 Architecture and Engineering Support, Task 5 Solution Engineering Support, Task 6 IMF Modernization Testing Support, Task 7: Subtask 3.7A Development Integration, Task 7: Subtask 3.7B

CLIN 2004: Travel - NTE

CLIN 3002: Task 2 Program, Project, and Release Management, Task 3 IMF Modernization Executive Support, Task 4 Architecture and Engineering Support, Task 5 Solution Engineering Support, Task 6 IMF Modernization Testing Support, Task 7: Subtask 3.7A Development Integration, Task 8 Cybersecurity, Task 9 Environments Integration, Task 11 Project Scheduling (FFP)

CLIN 3032: Task 2 Program, Project, and Release Management, Task 3 IMF Modernization Executive Support, Task 4 Architecture and Engineering Support, Task 5 Solution Engineering Support, Task 6 IMF Modernization Testing Support, Task 7: Subtask 3.7A Development Integration, Task 7: Subtask 3.7B Vendor Built/Driven Development Support, Task 8 Cybersecurity, Task 9 Environments Integration, Task 10 Business Tools and Technologies, Tasks 11 Project Scheduling - Optional (LH)

CLIN 3004: Travel

CLIN 4002: Task 2 Program, Project, and Release Management, Task 3 IMF Modernization Executive Support, Task 4 Architecture and Engineering Support, Task 5 Solution Engineering Support, Task 6 IMF Modernization Testing Support, Task 7: Subtask 3.7A Development Integration, Task 8 Cybersecurity, Task 9 Environments Integration, Task 11 Project Scheduling (FFP)

CLIN 4003: Task 2 Program, Project, and Release Management, Task 3 IMF Modernization Executive Support, Task 4 Architecture and Engineering Support, Task 5 Solution Engineering Support, Task 6 IMF Modernization Testing Support, Task 7: Subtask 3.7A Development Integration, Task 7: Subtask 3.7B

CLIN 4004: Travel - NTE

FIRM-FIXED PRICE (FFP)/LABOR HOUR ESTIMATES:

Firm Fixed Price (FFP) Effort For FFP Tasks described in the PWS Section as indicated in the table below. The Government estimates that the range of labor hours will be expended under the base period and each option period.

Effort Base Base Year 748,647 - 797,563 Option Year 1 733,530 - 779,848 Option Year 2 733,530 - 779,848 Option Year 3 733,530 - 779,848 Option Year 4 733,530 - 779,848

Note: This is based on historical information. Offerors shall propose their own solution including labor hours to these sub-task requirements.

Labor Hour (LH) Efforts

Offerors must use the labor hours and categories listed below.

Labor Categories: Journeyman Computer Programmer, Journeyman Computer Systems Analyst, Journeyman Computer Systems Engineer/Architect, Journeyman Information Security Analyst, Journeyman Software Developer-Applications, Journeyman Software Developer - Systems Software, Journeyman Software Quality Assurance Engineer and Tester, Journeyman Technical Writer, Junior Computer Programmer, Junior Computer Systems Analyst, Junior Computer Systems Engineer/Architect, Junior Document Management Specialist, Junior Information Security Analyst, Junior Software Quality Assurance Engineer and Tester, Junior Technical Writer, Senior Business Intelligence Analyst, Senior Computer Programmer, Senior Computer Systems Analyst, Senior Computer Systems Engineer/Architect, Senior Information Security Analyst, Senior Information Technology Project Manager, Senior Software Developer - Applications, Senior Software Quality Assurance Engineer and Tester, SME - Business Intelligence Analyst, SME - Computer Systems Analyst, SME - Computer Systems Engineer/Architect, SME - Software Developer - Applications, SME - Software Quality Assurance Engineer and Tester, SME Computer Programmer

Offerors who do not have the labor categories as stated above must map the proposed GSA MAS 54151S labor categories to the solicitation labor categories. Hours listed per designated labor hour task shall be used for purposes of evaluation.

Note: Failure to map their proposed labor categories and rates to the current GSA MAS 54151S labor categories rates may result in Offeror ineligibility for award:

LABOR HOUR (LH) TASKS ESTIMATES

Effort Base OP1 OP2 OP3 OP4 Task 2 Program, Project, and Release Management

18,220 18,220 18,220 18,220 18,220

Task 3 IMF Modernization Executive Support 1,411 1,411 1,411 1,411 1,411 Task 4 Architecture and Engineering Support 3,823 3,823 3,823 3,823 3,823 Task 5 Solution Engineering Support 4,472 4,472 4,472 4,472 4,472

Task 6 IMF Modernization Testing Support 10,667 10,667 10,667 10,667 10,667 Task 7: Subtask 3.7A Development Integration

12,182 12,182 12,182 12,182 12,182

Task 7: Subtask 3.7B Vendor Built/Driven Development Support

24,363 24,363 24,363 24,363 24,363

Task 8 Cybersecurity 2,408 2,408 2,408 2,408 2,408 Task 9 Environments Integration 4,940 4,940 4,940 4,940 4,940 Task 10 Business Tools and Technologies - Optional

10,588 10,588 10,588 10,588 10,588

Task 11 Project Scheduling - (Optional) 2,151 2,151 2,151 2,151 2,151 Total LH Subtasks 95,225 95,225 95,225 95,225 95,225

Work performed under LH sub-tasks will be subject to FAR 52.232-7 Payment under Time and Materials and Labor-Hour Contracts.

Note: The table above list the hours for the labor hour tasks and sub-tasks. Offeror must propose the required labor hours in the table for these task and sub-task requirements, or their entire quote will be deemed non-responsive to the RFQ and ineligible for award.

Evaluation Criteria

Source selection will be based on the most advantageous offer to the Government based on a best value tradeoff analysis. The acquisition strategy will be a single award utilizing the GSA Multiple Award Schedule (MAS) 51451S contract vehicle.

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).

The multi-phase approach is as follows:

The Government intends to conduct the evaluation and selection process in two (2) phases:

1. Phase 1 – Advisory. Factor 1 will be evaluated in this phase. Each offeror will receive an advisory notification. The advisory notification will inform the offeror of:

i. The basis of the Government advisory notice; and

ii. Either that it will be invited to participate in Phase 2 or based on the information submitted, that it is unlikely to be a viable competitor with the basis for that opinion. The intent of this distinction is to minimize proposal development costs for those vendors with little or no chance of receiving an award. However, the Government’s advice will be a recommendation only. Those offerors who are not advised to proceed may elect to continue their participation in the procurement.

NOTE: The advisory notification is the only notice the Government will provide from Phase 1;

brief explanations will not occur at the end of Phase 1.

2. Phase 2 – Factors 2 - 5 will be evaluated in this phase. The selection decision will be a trade-off analysis involving all five (5) factors.

i. Participation in Phase 1 is a mandatory part of this acquisition. Failure to participate in Phase 1 will preclude further consideration of the offeror’s proposal. Phase 2 submissions will not be accepted from any offeror who has not completed Phase.

ii. Results of Phase 1 will be carried over to Phase 2 for the overall evaluation of quotations.

No revisions to the Phase 1 submission will be accepted as part of Phase 2.

The Contractor shall have the ability to provide staff to the contract immediately upon award.

Evaluation Factors Each quotation shall be evaluated in accordance with the factors listed below. Offerors who receive a rating of “Unsatisfactory” for Factor 1 will not be eligible to move to Phase 2 for further evaluated under factors 2 - 5. (Note: Price will be evaluated, but will not be assigned an adjectival rating, or scored.)

Factor 1 – Corporate Experience Factor 2 – Technical Approach Factor 3 – Management Approach Factor 4 – Past Performance Factor 5 – Price

Order of Importance

Factor 1 – Corporate Experience is more important than Factor 2 – Technical Approach and Factor 3 – Management Approach.

Factor 2 - Technical Approach and Factor 3 – Management Approach are equally important.

Factor 1 – Corporate Experience, Factor 2 – Technical Approach, and Factor 3 – Management Approach are each more important than Factor 4 – Past Performance and Factor 5 – Price.

All evaluation factors other than price, when combined, are significantly more important than Factor 6, Price. However, as non-price factors become closer in perceived value, price considerations will become more important. Trade-off considerations may result in the determination that it is in the best interest of the Government to award to other than the lowest priced Offeror or other than the highest technically rated Offeror

Quote Attributes

A “significant strength” is an attribute of the offeror's quote that exceeds the specified performance or capability requirements in a way that is substantially beneficial to the government.

A "strength" is an attribute of the offeror's quote that exceeds the specified performance or capability requirements in a way that is beneficial to the government.

A "weakness" is an attribute of the Offeror’s quote which is likely to increase the probability of unsuccessful contract performance.

A “significant weakness” in an attribute of the Offeror’s quote which is likely to substantially increase the probability of unsuccessful contract performance.

A "deficiency" is a material failure of a quote to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a quote that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

The Government will not consider any quote for award that receives a technical rating of “Unacceptable” or “Unsatisfactory” for any evaluation factor.

In determining each rating, the Government will assess risk(s) as follows:

Low Risk – Contractor is more likely to succeed than fail.

Moderate Risk – Contractor is somewhat likely to succeed or fail.

High Risk - Contractor is more likely to fail than succeed.

Description and Adjectival ratings of Factors

PHASE 1

Factor 1 - Corporate Experience: (Volume 1): The Offeror’s quotation demonstrates recent relevant Corporate Experience, defined as at least three (3) years of experience within the last five (5) years in providing IT services of similar size, scope, and complexity as outlined in the PWS. The offeror’s project must demonstrate application of knowledge and expertise in the areas listed in the PWS.

Note: Corporate experience can be a combination of prime contractor, subcontractor, and teaming partner experience as long as the work for which experience is claimed is relevant and similar to the work that will be proposed for that prime, teaming partner or subcontractor.

Adjectival Rating for Factor 1

Rating Description

EXCELLENT The quote outlines an effective, efficient, and achievable approach for meeting requirements as defined in the PWS. The quote’s strengths significantly outweigh any weaknesses in a manner that will significantly benefit the Government. There are no significant weaknesses and no deficiencies.

GOOD The quote outlines an effective, efficient, and achievable approach for meeting requirements as defined in the PWS. The quote’s strengths outweigh any weaknesses in a manner that will benefit the Government. There are no significant weaknesses and no deficiencies.

SATISFACTORY The quote outlines an achievable approach for meeting requirements as defined in the PWS. The quote’s strengths, if any, are balanced out by weaknesses.

There are no deficiencies.

UNSATISFACTORY The quote fails to demonstrate an achievable approach for meeting all of the requirements defined in the PWS. The quote contains a deficiency or multiple significant weaknesses that present an unacceptably high risk of performance failure. Quote is not eligible for award.

PHASE 2

Offerors who receive a rating of “Unsatisfactory” for Factor 1 – Corporate Experience will not be eligible to move to Phase 2.

Factor 2 – Technical Approach (Volume 2): The Offeror's technical approach demonstrates a clear understanding of the work to be performed, including demonstrating design philosophies, operational frameworks, technological innovations, and the management of relationships and business processes that will foster successful achievement of all objectives detailed in the PWS. The quotation outlines an effective, efficient, achievable approach for accomplishing the work to be performed under this TO within the timeline specified by either performance periods or documented in a deliverable schedule.

The Offeror shall also demonstrate the ability to offer qualified personnel by providing a one-page resume for its proposed key personnel, to include the proposed employees’ educational background, work history for the last three years, and references.

Factor 3 – Management Approach (Volume 2): The Offeror's management approach demonstrates a clear understanding of the services necessary to accomplish the requirements identified in the PWS and demonstrates experience with project management disciplines. The Offeror’s management approach demonstrates how it will support LTIS 4’s project and release operations, including communication processes and management of risk.

The Offeror’s functional organizational chart describes job classification of corporate level personnel, management staff, technical staff, and other support staff; describes the levels of authority/approval process; and reflects the degree of authority each position will exercise in managing the resources (including subcontractors). The Offeror’s approach describes the strategy and methods to be employed to provide a fully qualified initial workforce at contract award, including current staff and hiring procedures;

methodology for maintaining current staff (i.e., incentives and award programs); acquiring required staffing levels and additional staffing on an ongoing basis, resource turnover, transitioning personnel (phase in/phase out), and utilization of subcontractors.

The Offeror’s Quality Assurance Program (QAP) illustrates a planned, systematic approach that links the Government and Contractor’s quality assurance efforts into an integrated package with shared objectives.

The Offeror’s QAP demonstrates an in-depth understanding of the quality performance requirements stated in the QASP (including how it will participate in the monthly collaborative Quality Assessment process), provides a clear statement of how the Offeror’s quality program will advance the IRS toward its objectives (stated in Section C), and provides a detailed set of Plans (for example, Configuration Management and Change Control Plan, Asset Management Plan, Risk Management Plan and other plans at the Offeror’s discretion), that the Offeror will use to manage execution of the IMF Modernization LTIS 4 Services program.

Adjectival Rating for Factor 2: Technical Approach and Factor 3 Management Approach

Rating Description

EXCELLENT The quote outlines an effective, efficient, and achievable approach for meeting requirements as defined in the PWS. The quote’s strengths significantly outweigh any weaknesses in a manner that will significantly benefit the Government. There are no significant weaknesses and no deficiencies. The risk of unsuccessful contract performance is very low.

GOOD The quote outlines an effective, efficient, and achievable approach for meeting requirements as defined in the PWS. The quote’s strengths outweigh any weaknesses in a manner that will benefit the Government. There are no significant weaknesses and no deficiencies. The risk of unsuccessful contract performance is low.

SATISFACTORY The quote outlines an achievable approach for meeting requirements as defined in the PWS. The quote’s strengths, if any, are balanced out by weaknesses. There are no deficiencies. The risk of unsuccessful contract performance is low to moderate.

UNSATISFACTORY The quote fails to demonstrate an achievable approach for meeting all of the requirements defined in the PWS. The quote contains a deficiency or multiple significant weaknesses that present an unacceptably high risk of performance failure. Quote is not eligible for award. Vendors who receive a rating of “Unsatisfactory” will not be eligible for award.

Factor 4 – Past Performance (Volume 3): The Offeror shall provide recent and relevant past performance.

The Offeror’s relevant experience will be evaluated based on the Offeror’s (and major subcontractor, team partner, etc., if applicable) experience with projects similar in size, scope and complexity to the requirements listed within PWS. The past performance reference must be within five (5) years of the submission deadline in this RFQ. The offeror’s project profiles must demonstrate application of knowledge and expertise in the areas listed in the PWS.

The Offeror shall distribute Attachment 3, Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) to POCs for each corporate experience project profile referenced in Factor 1, with instructions that the POC shall submit the completed PPQs directly to the Government via email. Completed PPQs shall only be submitted by the POC, not the offeror. Submission emails shall contain “RFQ 8326 Long Term Integration Support 4 (LTIS 4)” in the subject line. The references for all contracts must have been associated with the contract during the last five (5) years. All completed PPQs must be received by the Government by the due date for quotation submission. The offeror, not the Government, shall be responsible for ensuring PPQs are submitted timely.

Evaluation of past performance may be based upon the completed questionnaires (PPQs) obtained from the technical competency and alternate references identified by the offerors completed questionnaires;

upon past performance information contained in the Customer Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS); or upon any other resource available. CPARS has been established as a Government-wide performance system and serves as a central warehouse for performance assessment reports received from various Federal performance information collections systems. Based upon information contained in CPARS and in the technical competency and alternate references, the Government will evaluate offerors’ relevant past performance performing on contracts similar in size, scope and complexity to that contemplated by the RFQ.

The Government will not consider contracts that are dissimilar or only mildly similar. Offerors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and will receive a neutral rating for past performance. A neutral rating for Past Performance does not make an Offeror ineligible for award.

There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy and quality, which will form the basis of the performance confidence assessment:

Recency The first aspect of the past performance evaluation is to assess the recency of the Offerors past performance. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant, and is critical to establishing the relevancy of past performance information. For this acquisition, recency is defined as past performance references within the last five (5) years as of the date of this solicitation release.

Relevancy The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to assess the Offerors 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 following criteria will be used to establish what is relevant, which shall include similarity of service/support, complexity; dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming.

Quality The third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to establish the overall quality of the Offerors past performance by determining how well the contractor performed on the recent and relevant contracts. The past performance evaluation conducted in support of this source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the Offerors past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the Offeror performed those past contracts. Evaluators will review all past performance information collected and determine the quality of the Offerors performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate these into the performance confidence assessment.

The past performance confidence assessment rating will be based on the Offerors overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance.

The following adjectival ratings will be used to evaluate this factor:

Adjectival Rating for Factor 4

Relevancy Rating Description

VERY RELEVANT Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

RELEVANT Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

SOMEWHAT

RELEVANT

Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

NOT RELEVANT Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Performance

Confidence Rating Description

SUBSTANTIAL

CONFIDENCE

Based on the Offerors recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

SATISFACTORY

CONFIDENCE

Based on the Offerors recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

NEUTRAL

CONFIDENCE

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the Offerors performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

LIMITED

CONFIDENCE

Based on the Offerors recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

NO

CONFIDENCE

Based on the Offerors recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Factor 5 – Price

For purpose of evaluation, the evaluated total price shall include the base period (including price for each sub-task) all optional quantities, option periods, travel, and all other costs or prices, as applicable. Price will be evaluated, but will not be assigned an adjectival rating, or scored. The Government will evaluate the price quote to determine if the total overall price is fair and reasonable in accordance with FAR Subpart 15.404-1(b), reflects a clear understanding of the requirements, and is consistent with the Offeror’s technical quote. Evaluation of options does not obligate the government to exercise the option.

Note: FAR 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services, is incorporated in the solicitation. The total evaluated price will also include the six-month performance period permitted under the clause, to account for a situation where invoking of the clause, in whole or part, becomes necessary. Considering FAR 52.217-8 may be exercised at the end of the performance period, for evaluation purposes, pricing for the extension in FAR 52.217-8 will be calculated by taking 50% of the final option period price. Offerors shall propose the six-month pricing.

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, whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

Basis for Award:

The selection of a contractor under this RFQ will be at the sole discretion of the Source Selection Authority (SSA). Award determination will be based on the quote that represents overall “best value” to the Government in accordance with the established criteria and rating methodology set for in the RFQ.

The evaluation will be based on a complete assessment of each Offerors technical quotation, past performance information, and price quotation. Best value means an acquisition process that results in the most advantageous acquisition decision for the Government performed through an integrated assessment and trade-off between technical factors and price. Technical factors include all factors other than the price factor. The order of importance for the evaluation factors are as follows: Factor 1 is more important than Factor 2 and Factor 3. Factor 2 and Factor 3 are equally important. Factor 1, Factor 2, and Factor 3 are each more important than Factor 4 and Factor 5. Trade-off considerations may result in the determination that it is in the best interest of the Government to award to other than the lowest priced Offeror or other than the highest technically rated Offeror. Although price is of less importance than technical factors combined, the closer quote technical ratings are to one another, the more important price consideration becomes in determining the best value to the Government. A best value analysis will not be performed or developed for any Offeror whose proposal is found to be technically unacceptable or unsatisfactory in any other factor.

The Government intends to make award without interchanges with Offerors. Offerors are highly encouraged to quote their best technical and price quotes in their initial submissions. However, the Government reserves the right to communicate with any or all Offeror’s submitting a technical and price quote. An Offeror may be eliminated from consideration without further communication if its technical and/or pricing quotes are not among those Offerors considered most advantageous to the Government based on a best value determination. Quotes which merely restate the requirement provided in the RFQ will also not be considered eligible for award.

Each Vendor’s quotation will be rated in accordance with its content. The Government will not assume adequacy of performance in areas not specified in a vendor’s written quotation. Quotations that are unrealistic in terms of either a technical or price nature may be reflective of an inherent risk, lack of competence, or indicative of failure to comprehend the complexity and risks associated with the solicitation requirements and may result in a determination of unacceptability. The assessment of price will consider the overall price (base period and all options).

Quotes shall set forth full, accurate, and complete information as required by this solicitation package (including Attachments). The penalty for making false statements in quotes is prescribed in 18 U.S.C.

1001.

AWARD OF FULL QUANTITY

Offerors must submit prices for…