S5121A-15-R-0012-0005.docx

S5121A-15-R-0012

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

The following have been modified:

ADDENDUM 52.212-2

B. ADDENDUM 52.212-2: EVALUATION CRITERIA

(1) Evaluation of Proposals

(1.1) Basis for Contract Award: Full Tradeoff Source Selection Process utilizing streamlined procedures for evaluation of commercials items IAW FAR 12.602. This best-value decision shall be based on a comparative assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation, considering recommendations and minority opinions presented to the SSA. While the Source Selection Authority (SSA) may use reports and analyses prepared by others, the source selection decision shall represent the SSA's independent judgment.

(1.2) Contract(s) may be awarded to the offeror(s) who are deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR, as supplemented, whose proposal(s) conform to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Addendum 52.212-1 & Addendum 52.212-2) of the solicitation and is judged by an overall assessment of the evaluation factors to represent the most advantageous offer(s) to the Government. As part of making the assessment, a best value analysis will be performed utilizing trade-offs between price and non-price factors.

(1.3) As a basis for award, trade-offs between price and non-price factors are permitted. THEREFORE, THE GOVERNMENT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO AWARD TO OTHER THAN THE LOWEST PROPOSED PRICE. However, the degree of importance of price as a factor in determining award could become greater depending upon the equality of the proposals evaluated in the non-price factors. The greater the equality of proposals within the non-price factors, the more important price becomes in selecting the best value to the Government. Unreasonably proposed prices may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition.

(1.4) Award for All of the Work: The Government contemplates making four (4) awards as a result of this solicitation. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award contracts without discussions with offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a), Clarifications and award without discussions). Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint. In the event that discussions are held, a competitive range determination will be made. The Government reserves the right to award more or less than the contemplated four (4) awards if the SSA determines it's in the best interest of the Government.

(1.5) Relative Importance of Factors: DCMA anticipates awarding a contract(s) to the Offeror whose proposal is the best value to DCMA based upon an analysis of the factors below. Proposals will first be reviewed to confirm the Offeror’s ability to meet the Go/No-Go factors provided in this solicitation (reference 52.212-1) para (7). If a proposal fails to meet any of the Go/No-Go factors provided herein, the proposal will not be evaluated further, and the Offeror will not be given further consideration for a contract award. Offerors that meet the Go/No-Go factors will then be evaluated on all remaining factors and no one factor is determinative. For instance, DCMA may award to an Offeror based on past performance or an offeror that does not offer the lowest price or to an Offeror that is not the highest technically rated proposal. DCMA reserves the right to make no award pursuant to this solicitation.

(1.6) The Government will complete the evaluation on all proposals IAW Addendum 52.212-2. Technical Factors are listed in descending order of importance. Non-price Factors when combined are significantly more important than price. Pricing will be evaluated, but not be assigned a rating. The evaluation of the price proposal will include accuracy to the instructions as identified in Addendum to 52.212-1, completeness, and reasonableness.

(1.7) The Government will evaluate the degree to which the Offeror’s proposed technical approach demonstrates an understanding of the objectives/principles and functional and technical requirements of this solicitation and is likely to result in successful completion of the PWS and other requirements, in accordance with the PWS.

(1.8) Technical and management approaches that decrease risk to the government or exceed stated requirements may be viewed as strengths or advantages that result in higher evaluation.

(2) Technical Evaluation Factors for Award: DCMA will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed solution for the following factors:

(2.1) FACTOR 1: EXPERIENCE:

(2.1.1) Evaluation Method: GO/NO-GO FACTORS

(2.1.2) Sub-factor 1 – Contract Experience - Prime must have successfully completed at least one (1) contract in the IT Program Management Office (PMO), IT Portfolio management, IT Project or Program management support services areas within the past five (5) years with a total awarded amount (PER CONTRACT) GREATER THAN $4 million.

***Completed is defined as the base period of performance that has been performed and completed as well as, all deliverables in the base period having been accepted by the Government. The total awarded amount for the base period and any option periods shall be greater than $4 million.

(2.1.3) Sub-factor 2: Prime Experience – The Prime must have completed at least three (3) years of experience that meets all of the following:

1. Experience must be as the Prime Contractor of a federal/commercial contract similar in scope.

1. Experience can be from one or multiple contracts as the Prime.

1. Experience must be obtained prior to the proposal due date.

1. Experience from multiple concurrent contracts during the same year only count as one year.

1. Offerors shall be Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) Level 3 rated and have experience as a Prime Contractor for one successful period of performance Minimum (12 Months) on any Federal/DoD or commercial contract by the close of the RFP date to be qualified to provide support for MOCAS Lifecycle Investment Management (LIM), Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) Office of the Chief Technology Officer, and other DoD eCommerce Project/Programs with the referenced task areas and labor categories.

(2.1.4) Sub-factor 3 – Project Experience – The Offeror must have successfully completed contracts in each of the following service areas (IT Program Management office (PMO), CPIC/Portfolio Management, IT Project AND Program management support) within the past five (5) years (BY THE PROPOSAL DUE DATE).

1. Experience, successfully migrating persistent data storage and providing migration solutions for Legacy or other commercially similar software.

1. Experience and how to modernize access/data for Legacy or other commercially similar software.

1. Experience in successful development and implementation of user interface of major Government or commercial systems for modernization and migration to modern web based technologies.

1. Experience in the development and implementation of various architectural approaches supporting transactional environment i.e. various architectural approaches supporting transactional versus batch processing and successful development of developing/implementing system state recovery for major systems.

(3) FACTOR 2: - TECHNICAL CAPABILITY/APPROACH

(3.1) The Technical Capability evaluation provides an assessment of the offeror’s capability to satisfy the Government’s requirements. The evaluation will focus on the significant strengths, strengths, significant weaknesses, weaknesses and deficiencies of the offeror's proposal for each subfactor. The below subfactors will be evaluated together for assessment of the overall Technical Capability.

(3.2) The Technical Capability Factor/Subfactor will receive one of the combined technical/risk rating defined below. The rating includes risk associated with the technical approach. Proposal risk is used to portray the evaluation of weaknesses in the offerors’ proposals.

approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

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.

demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

more deficiencies. Proposal is un-awardable.

(3.3) Sub-factor 1: Technical Approach (ability to satisfy requirements in PWS Technical Capability)

1. The extent to which the proposed technical approach meets the applicable functional and technical requirements and demonstrates a high likelihood of success with low risk, in accordance with the PWS.

1. The Offeror technical capabilities to meet the criteria in the statement of work. The Offeror ability to clearly describe and address the desired outcomes contained in the PWS.

(3.4) Sub-factor 2: Management Approach (quality oversight)

1. The extent to which the proposed management approaches meets the applicable functional and technical requirements and demonstrates a high likelihood of success with low risk, in accordance with the PWS.

1. The offeror’s ability to organize and manage the effort to successfully perform the primary and supplemental tasks identified in the PWS and the ability to manage multiple delivery orders simultaneously.

1. The Offeror’s subcontractors and teaming arrangements if applicable. The ability to manage and integrate (transparency of operations) teaming partners and/or subcontractors into the prime contractor’s organization; and the capability of providing corporate reach back capability to the DCMA contractor organization.

1. The offeror’s ability to identify the organizational structure (to include work responsibilities and decision making authority), managing delivery orders, subcontractor integration, and communications.

1. The offeror’s ability to institute an effective OCI process and procedures that reduces the potential risk of an OCI violation.

1. The Offeror’s ability to manage the overall contract and the process by which it will manage the subsequent Task Orders.

1. The Offeror’s subcontractors and teaming arrangements if applicable.

(3.5) Sub-factor 3: Staffing & Key Personnel (meeting required specialized experience).

1. The offeror’s ability to successfully manage staff, recruit and provide continuity of qualified personnel to perform the requirements of the PWS in a timely manner including for urgent requirements (surge support) at all DCMA locations.

1. The offeror’s ability to reduce the risk of performance by understanding the unique skill sets required for successful performance and recruiting and retaining for those skill sets.

1. The qualifications and skill sets of the Key Personnel (see 3.0 of the PWS) including education, work experience, technical training and certifications relevant to the position for which the individual is being proposed.

1. The Offeror’s capability to provide signed letter of commitment if applicable (contingent hires) for all key personnel

(4) FACTOR 3- PAST PERFORMANCE

(4.1) Past Performance Evaluation: 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. Each offeror shall be assigned one of the relevancy ratings in the below table.

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

(4.2) The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the contractor performed on the contracts. The Past Performance Evaluation Team will review this past performance information and determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to performance confidence assessment. Each offeror shall be assigned one of the confidence ratings in the below table.

Performance Confidence Assessments

performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral) No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

0. Performance Relevancy

0. The Offeror’s past performance experience based on how well it is directly related to the requirements of this project.

0. Offerors past performance will be evaluated to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection, and how well the contractor performed on the contracts.

0. Performance Confidence

1. Any risks to the Offeror’s ability to successfully perform the requirements of this solicitation.

1. The Offeror’s ability to conform to contract requirements and adhere to contract schedules, and its commitment to customer satisfaction based upon its record of past performance for contracts that are similar in scope to this RFP.

1. The Offeror’s past performance reported in Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS)/ Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS).

NOTE: In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available; the Offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. The offeror will receive a neutral rating. While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing thorough and complete past performance information rests with the Offeror.

(5) FACTOR 4: PRICE EVALUATION FACTOR

(5.1) Cost/Price Factor evaluation will not be given a rating; however, it will be evaluated using price analysis techniques in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b) in order to determine that the offered price is fair and reasonable. The Offeror must identify the labor category(s) to be utilized for this effort, labor rate(s), and any other proposed associated costs. Subcontractor rate information shall also be included, if applicable.

(5.1.2) Options: (if applicable), The Government will evaluate offers offsite pricing 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 will not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

(5.1.3) 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 Summary of Changes) image1.wmf