Proposal_Instructions_and_Evaluation_Methodology.docx

SECTION L – SOLICITATION PROVISIONS

L.1 Addendum to Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Items The following instructions supplement those at FAR 52.212-1(b).

(a) Offerors are expected to follow the detailed proposal preparation instructions in this section L fully and carefully. The Government will rely substantially on the information provided by the Offerors to evaluate the proposals. It is therefore very important that Offerors carefully follow the instructions set forth below and submit their proposals in the format and with the content specified below, providing all requested information. Offers that simply restate the RFP requirements or that state that the Offeror’s proposal is compliant with the requirements of the RFP – without providing necessary explanation or other data -- are not likely to be highly evaluated. Initial proposals that fail to provide all required information in the format requested may be found unacceptable and may be rejected without further consideration if the Contracting Officer determines that a significant revision or addendum to the Offeror’s proposal would be required to permit further evaluation, and especially if the incompleteness of the proposal or errant formatting of the proposal appears to be due to a lack of diligence or competence of the Offeror.

(b) The instructions provided have been specifically tailored to the evaluation factors to be applied during proposal evaluation. They are designed to ensure the submission of information essential to the understanding and comprehensive validation and evaluation of proposals. Clarity and completeness are of utmost importance to the proposal. The relevance and conciseness of the proposal is important. Key points should be easily found, or may be presumed to be lacking. The Offeror should maintain careful organization and adherence to the titling instructions throughout the proposal. Complex or costly presentations are neither required nor desired.

(c) The proposal shall be valid for 120 calendar days from the proposal due date.

(d) Each volume shall be written to the greatest extent possible on a stand-alone basis so that its content may be evaluated with a minimum of cross-referencing to other volumes of the proposal. No cost/price data is permitted in Volumes I and II. Cross-referencing within a proposal volume is permitted where its use would conserve space without impairing clarity. Information required for proposal evaluation, which is not found in its designated volume or cross-referenced, is assumed omitted from the proposal.

(e) Proposals must be clear, coherent and prepared in sufficient detail for effective evaluation of the Offeror’s proposal against the evaluation criteria contained in Section M - Evaluation. The Offeror’s proposal shall illustrate its approach for satisfying all requirements in RFP Section C, “Statement of Work” of this solicitation. The Offeror shall use the Technical Compliance Matrix RFP Attachment to identify where each requirement is addressed in the Offeror’s Technical/Management Proposal. The Offeror’s proposal shall also include the Offeror’s approach for logistics, maintenance, training, and all optional CLINs (i.e. installations, additional training, surge and contingency support and extended equipment warranty). Proposals must clearly demonstrate how the Offeror intends to accomplish the project and must include convincing rationale and substantiation of all claims. The Offeror shall describe in its proposal, through the use of graphs, charts, diagrams and narrative, sufficient detail for the Government to understand and evaluate the nature of the approach.

L.2 Proposal Volume Requirements The proposal shall be accompanied by a cover letter (letter of transmittal) prepared on the company’s letterhead stationery. The letter of transmittal shall identify all enclosures being transmitted and shall be used only to transmit the proposal and shall include no other information. The first page of the proposal shall be prepared in accordance with FAR 52.215-1, paragraph (c)(2).

The following describes the how the proposal response narrative and data shall be organized.

VOLUME I. Technical/Management.

Each section in Volume I shall be mapped and limited to specific sections of the Statement of Work.

· Tab A: Domestic Data Center Technical Approach & Solution, 35pp limit. (SOW, C.4.1 & C.4.2)

· Tab B: Remote Office Technical Approach & Solution, 35pp limit. (SOW, C.4.1 & C.4.3)

· Tab C: Management Approach & Solution, 30pp limit. (SOW, C.5, C.6, C.7, C.8) VOLUME II. Past Performance

· Tab A: Corporate Experience, 30pp limit.

· Tab B: Past Performance, no page limit.

VOLUME III Cost / Price

· Tab A: Life Cycle Cost Model (LCCM), no page limit.

· Tab B: Business Proposal, no page limit.

NUMBER OF COPIES:

Volume I: The Offeror shall provide 1 original and 4 paper copies of Volume I, along with 2 electronic copies on CD.

Volume II: The Offeror shall provide 1 original and 4 paper copies of Volume II, along with 2 electronic copies on CD.

Volume III: The Offeror shall provide 1 original and 2 paper copies of Volume III, along with 2 electronic copies on CD.

L.2.1 Page Limitations The cover letter (letter of transmittal), title page, table of contents, table of figures, list of tables and glossary of abbreviations and acronyms do not count against page count limitations. Proposal contents that exceed the stated page limitations will be removed from the proposal by the Contracting Officer, prior to turning the proposal over to the Government evaluation teams, and will not be considered in the evaluation.

L.2.2 Format Text shall be single-spaced, on 8 1/2 x 11 inch paper (except as specifically permitted elsewhere in this RFP), with a minimum one-inch margin all around. Pages shall be numbered consecutively. A page printed on both sides shall be counted as two pages. Submission as double-sided printing/copying on recycled paper is encouraged. 11” x 17” sized fold-out pages may be used for tables, charts, graphs, or pictures that cannot be legibly presented on 8 ½” x 11” paper. An 11” x 17” printed on a single side is a two sheet equivalent (with regards to the page count limitations). Print shall be of a minimum 12-point font size or a maximum 10 characters per inch (10-pitch, pica) spacing. Bolding, underlining, and italics may be used to identify topic demarcations or points of emphasis. Graphic presentations, including tables, while not subject to the same font size and spacing requirements, shall have spacing and text that is easily readable.

Each volume in the proposal shall include a copy of the cover letter, title page and table of contents. The table of contents shall list sections, subsections and page numbers. Each volume shall contain a glossary of all abbreviations and acronyms used. Each acronym used shall be spelled out in the text the first time it appears in each proposal volume. Each volume shall be bound separately in hard side three-ring binders.

In addition to the paper copies identified above, the Offeror shall submit all proposal information in electronic format on a CD. Text and graphics portions of the electronic copies shall be in a format readable by Microsoft (MS) Office Suite 2010. In case of conflict between the paper copy and the electronic copy of the proposals submitted, the paper copy shall take precedence. CDs shall be “read-only”. One of the Volume III Cost/Price disks shall be in read-or-write format with spreadsheets unlinked to any other spreadsheets or other files. The other copy may contain links, but only to documents/ spreadsheets that have been submitted as part of the proposal.

The following information must appear on each hardcopy volume and CD:

GITM ECP RFP # SAQMMA14R0308

Disk Title (e.g., “Disk 1 – Volume I, Technical/Management”) Copy Designation ( “Copy # _ of 2”) Date proposal is submitted to the Government.

L.2.3 Volume I – Technical/Management Volume 1 is the Offeror’s Technical/Management solution in which the Offeror must demonstrate its understanding of, approach to, and solution for each requirement in the RFP section C - Statement of Work for the Domestic Data Center, the Remote Office, and all associated management activities with respect to the constraints in sections C.9, C.10, and C.11. The Offeror shall use the Technical Compliance Matrix RFP Attachment to identify where each requirement is addressed in the Offeror’s Technical/Management Proposal.

The Offeror’s proposal and overall technical approach and solution must address the following aspects:

Innovation - The Department requires innovative ECP solution(s) that address IT core infrastructure requirements, reduce IT infrastructure life-cycle costs, achieve efficiencies through standardization, increase existing system reliability and capability; yet provide scalable solutions that incorporate emerging technology, while still providing growth potential for future enhancements. In addition, the Government seeks to reduce the core operating physical footprint. Offerors proposal shall demonstrate that their approach to innovation is superior to other technical approaches. For example, taking an innovative approach (e.g. multiple modular stackable racks) in order to reduce these dimensions and/or make the racks more cost effective.

Quality - All equipment will be new and constructed to commercial quality standards, i.e., made of sturdy materials that shall not crack, crumble, or fall apart under normal daily stress and handling. Components shall be manufactured in a manner as to be uniform in quality and shall be clean, i.e., free of dirt, grease, cracks, scratches, sharp edges, safety issues or other blemishes.

Enterprise Software Environment - The Offeror shall provide a slip-streamed version of the hypervisor, although the Government does not require operating system licenses. Furthermore, any modifications that affect enterprise licensing costs shall be evaluated as part of the Offeror’s proposal.

“Single pane of glass” – The Offeror’s solution shall include the “single pane of glass” as defined in the Statement of Work.

L.2.3.1 The Offeror’s Domestic Data Center Approach and Solution(s) - The Offeror’s technical proposal shall address each of the requirements listed in the Statement of Work for the Domestic Data Center base configuration. The Offeror shall use the Technical Compliance Matrix RFP Attachment to identify where each requirement is addressed in the Offeror’s Technical/Management Proposal for each of the areas in the Statement of Work: Innovation, Networking, Storage, Computing, Backup/Disaster Recovery/Data Offshoring, System Management Suite, Security, Implementation and Migration.

L.2.3.2 The Offeror’s Remote Office Approach and Solution(s) - The Offeror’s technical proposal shall address each of the Remote Office Solution base configuration requirements listed in the Statement of Work. The Offeror shall use the Technical Compliance Matrix RFP Attachment to identify where each requirement is addressed in the Offeror’s Technical/Management Proposal for each of the areas in the Statement of Work: Innovation, Networking, Storage, Computing, Backup/Disaster Recovery/Data Offshoring, System Management Suite, Security, Implementation and Migration.

L.2.3.3 Management Approach and Solution- The Offeror’s managment proposal shall address each of the management requirements listed in sections C.4 through C.12 inclusively. The Offeror shall use the Technical Compliance Matrix at Attachment J-4 to identify where each requirement is addressed in the Offeror’s Technical/Management Proposal.

L.2.3.3.1 Implementation and Migration - The Offeror shall provide a solution(s) that meets or exceeds the requirements contained in the Statement of Work. The Offeror shall use the Technical Compliance Matrix RFP Attachment to identify where each requirement is addressed in the Offeror’s Technical/Management Proposal.

L.2.3.3.1.1 Implementation - The configuration above shall be established in the technical package (See “Glossary” RFP Attachment) agreed to by the Government and the eventual ECP contractor(s). One technical package should be submitted per solution, and they each must be revised per tech refresh. The Offeror shall provide proof of configuration and quality assurance procedures for each solution.

· The Offeror solution shall provide the slipstreamed version of VMware ESXi for the applicable ECP hardware. Solution shall have vSphere preinstalled according to GITM’s current baseline.

· The Offeror solution shall provide the required firmware baseline for all hardware, hardware configurations, any required software, and associated documentation (installation, user guides and system checklists). Baselines shall be established between the Offeror and Department of State.

· The Offeror’s solution shall integrate with VMware vCenter and vCenter Operations Manager.

· The Offeror shall deliver a fully racked ECP solution or individual components (servers, network devices, storage, cables, etc.) The system should have an easy install guide that aligns with easily identifiable components and connections.

· The Offeror’s solution shall allow for continuous capacity monitoring with unified dashboards, reports, and analytics across all components.

· The Offeror’s solution shall provide the ability to automate the provisioning of ECP components.

· The Offeror’s solution shall provide redundancy for each component with no single points of failure.

· The Offeror’s solution shall provide the capability of scaling up and out.

· The Offeror shall provide a tool for forecasting data growth.

· The Offeror shall provide a system that has a chained or cascading replication ability from origin to intermediate to final replication destinations, allowing for improved site redundancy.

· The Offeror shall provide a solution for seeding storage in support of replication.

· The Offeror shall provide a replication capability that can withstand network interruptions; scheduled replications shall be supported.

The Offeror shall use the Technical Compliance Matrix RFP Attachment to identify where each requirement is addressed in the Offeror’s Technical/Management Proposal.

L.2.3.3.1.2 Migration

· The Offeror shall provide a solution that easily transfers existing Cisco configurations from the current environment to the solution.

· The Offeror shall provide a solution for performing physical-to-virtual, virtual-to-virtual and virtual-to-physical migrations. The tool shall support scheduling, status reporting, and provide error detection.

· The Offeror shall provide a complete installation and migration guide (document) for their solution. The guide shall include, but is not limited to the following:

· Physical installation in server room

· ECP cable management guide/schema

· Process and procedures for installing and uninstalling ECP components

The Offeror shall use the Technical Compliance Matrix at Attachment J-4 to identify where each requirement is addressed in the Offeror’s Technical/Management Proposal.

L.2.3.3.2 Logistics This section describes each logistical requirement that the Offeror must address in its technical and management solutions.

L.2.3.3.2.1 Customer Service Liaison: The Offerors proposal shall address the single point of contact for coordinating all aspects of project management and address all requirements in the SOW. The Offeror shall use the Technical Compliance Matrix RFP Attachment to identify where each requirement is addressed in the Offeror’s Technical/Management Proposal.

L.2.3.3.2..2 Project Documents: The Offeror’s proposal shall include the following project documents as described in the Statement of Work.

Project Documents

Project Management Plan

Quality Assurance Plan

IT Security Plan

Communications Plan

Risk Management Plan

L.2.3.3.2.3 Production Control Dashboard: The Offeror(s) proposals are required to address how they shall design, integrate, build, prepare ECP solutions for shipment in accordance with the requirements listed in the Statement of Work.

L.2.3.3.2.4 Design, Integrate Build And Prepare For Shipment: The proposed rack dimensions, packaged dimensions, and weights shall be included with the response. Rack elevations (i.e. technical drawings) for each ECP solution shall also be provided in the Offeror’s response. Note: The Offeror may not submit a rack that exceeds the dimensions provided in the Statement of Work.

The Offeror shall describe their ECP production capacity. The Government anticipates a monthly requirement ranging from 10 to 20 remote office solutions in a variety of (user base) sizes. Annual total range of ECP Remote Office solutions ranges between 100-150 solutions per year.

The Offeror shall demonstrate an understanding of building, configuring and testing equipment in accordance with existing Department of State policies and standards. The contractor(s) shall load base software, perform quality checks on ECP solution against pre-determined quality control gates and processes.

L.2.3.3.2.5 Order fulfillment: The Offeror shall provide their maximum production rates by solution size, for 30, 60 and 90 calendar days (see notional table below) per the requirements in the Statement of Work. The Offer shall also provide the optimal production rate assuming a minimum of 15 solutions are required each month.

Notional Production

Notional Optimal Production Rate Per Month

The Offerors proposal shall also address component end-of-life and Technology Refresh approach.

· Pack and Crate – The Offeror’s proposal must address packing and crating requirements detailed in the Statement of Work.

· Shipment Coordination – The Offeror’s proposal must address how they intend to communicate with the Governments transportation coordinator in accordance with the requirements addressed in the Statement of Work.

· Warranty and Extended Warranty: The Offeror shall provide terms of equipment warranties (e.g. duration, effective date of warranty) per the requirements of the Statement of Work.

L.2.3.3.3 Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization Offerors shall submit a small business subcontracting plan specifying what percentage of the work they will subcontract to small businesses and how the offerors will manage their subcontractors and suppliers.

L.2.3.3.4 Maintenance This section describes each maintenance requirement that the Offeror must address in its technical and management solutions.

· Software Licensing - The Offeror is encouraged to provide licensing options for the Government’s consideration.

· Software License Management: The Offeror’s proposal shall include a methodology for communicating additional licensing information to the Government and a methodology for tracking all relevant software licensing information for the solution and each individual system as per the requirements in the Statement of Work. Examples include storage, backup and disaster recovery management tools, etc.

· Software Maintenance: The Offeror’s software solution shall also include all costs associated with licensing, patches and upgrades as per the requirements in section C.6.1. The Offeror shall not include the costs of these items in their proposals; however, the Offeror may propose items that these items are bundled in the overall solution cost.

· Technical Support – the Offeror shall propose a Tier 4 Technical Support concept that addresses the requirements outlined in the Statement of Work.

L.2.3.3.5 Training and Installation – The Offeror’s proposal must address how it intends to train personnel per the requirements discussed in the Statement of Work and install the technical solution per the requirements discussed in the Statement of Work.

L.2.4 Volume II - Corporate Experience and Past Performance Information Volume II contains the information and data for evaluation of the Offeror's corporate experience and past performance.

L.2.4.1 Tab A: Corporate Experience In this section the Offeror shall describe how work performed for each corporate experience reference it lists relates to the DOS requirements. The Offeror and the two largest proposed subcontractors shall provide corporate experience information on the three most recent contracts (commercial and/or government) on which they have performed which are similar in size, scope, and complexity to this acquisition. If no such contracts exist, the Offeror shall provide the three largest contracts performed in the last two years. At a minimum, the Offeror shall have acted as the prime contractor on one of the references provided.

L.2.4.2 Tab B: Past Performance Information The Offeror and the two largest proposed subcontractors shall forward a copy of the Past Performance Survey (PPS) to the program managers for all contracts to be used as references for the Offeror’s (and subcontractors’) past performance and request that the references fill out the questionnaire and forward it to the point of contact e-mail address on the SF 1449. Offerors may access the website at www.fedbizopps.gov to download the PPS. Past Performance Surveys that are forwarded to the Contracting Officer by the Offeror will not be evaluated. It is the responsibility of the Offeror to ensure that the requested information is submitted to the DOS in a timely manner.

The following information about each contract submitted as a past performance reference shall be included: both a Client Project Manager/COR and a Client Contracting Officer point-of-contact with accurate and current telephone numbers and e-mail addresses for each reference. The Offeror shall ensure that the persons named as references are available at the telephone numbers specified. If the work for a client reference is currently in progress, the Offeror should have performed and/or completed enough work so that the reference can offer an opinion or evaluation of the Offeror's work.

Note: Although past performance references are requested, DOS may use information from Government past performance databases (e.g., PPIRS) and any other information available to the evaluators, to determine the contractor’s ability to effectively manage the schedule, cost, quality, and technical performance of the project, including the performance of its proposed subcontractors.

L.2.5 Volume III – Cost/Price and Business Proposal Volume III consists of the Offeror’s proposed prices and costs for all products (CLINs) proposed in accordance with section B, using RFP Attachment “Life-Cycle Cost/Price Model (LCCM)”. Offerors may access the website at www.fedbizopps.gov to download the LCCM. Volume III also includes information necessary for evaluation of the Offeror's compliance with laws, regulations, and provisions of the contract. This volume also includes the Offeror’s cover letter, representations and certifications, and EEO compliance review.

L.2.5.1 Tab A: Life-Cycle Cost Model The Offeror shall complete the Government provided Life-Cycle Cost Model (LCCM) by inserting its proposed prices for all CLINs listed in RFP Section B and the Life-Cycle Cost Model RFP Attachment.

The Offeror shall provide firm-fixed prices (except where otherwise noted) for all Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs) for all contract years. CLINs are organized in both Remote Office and Domestic Data Center configurations; see Life-Cycle Cost Model RFP Attachment. For the Domestic Data Center, the Offeror shall provide one scalable base configuration to address the Domestic Data Center’s requirements. For the Remote Office solution(s), the Offeror shall determine the optimal number (a minimum of one and no more than eight) of composite solutions it proposes to address the Government’s requirements. The Offeror’s solution shall include the “single pane of glass” as defined in the Statement of Work as part of the total solution cost.

Offerors shall provide the details of their proposed technical solution(s) for the Domestic Data Center and all Remote Office configurations in their proposed LCCM. The base configuration and composite solution(s) will include all hardware, software, integration, software licensing, software maintenance, and warranties. The Offeror shall provide manufacturer(s)’s model and/or part numbers down to the component level for each item included in the composite solution. Offerors shall use the Government-provided CLIN/Sub-Line Item Number (SLIN) numbering format contained in the LCCM. At the component level Offerors shall price all hardware, software, software licensing, component software maintenance, warranty, packing and crating. The Government anticipates that “roll-up” price of the components to the complete solution level(s) may vary from the price of the composite solution.

Offerors shall include the firm-fixed prices for the following items as separate CLINs:

· Backup/disaster recovery

· Packaging and crating

· Extended warranties

· Systems management suite

· Customer service liaison

· Tier 4 technical support

· Installation

· Training

· Surge contingency support.

L.2.5.2 Tab B: Representations, Certifications, and Other Information This section consists of the Offeror’s cover letter which contains the Offeror’s promise to accept all RFP specifications, requirements, terms, and conditions along with any exceptions to the above; a complete list of all assumptions used in preparing the offer, including the Life-Cycle Cost Model, and any special feature of the offer that should be brought to the Contracting Officer’s attention. The cover letter shall include the Offeror’s primary points of contact (POC) along with their address, phone, fax, e-mail, and other contact information.

This information should include all representations, certifications, and other contract information required by the solicitation. Include the DUNS number, CAGE Code, and certification of SAM registration.

The Offeror shall provide in this tab, a listing of proposed subcontractors whose anticipated participation in this contract is over one million dollars. Include company name, DUNS number, CAGE Code, points of contact, address, telephone numbers, and estimated subcontracting amount.

Section M – Evaluation M.1 Introduction This section describes the evaluation factors and process DOS will use to evaluate Offerors’ proposals for award of contract(s) under the ECP acquisition. DOS will determine which proposal(s) is most advantageous to the Government based on an integrated assessment of each Offeror’s technical/management, past performance, and cost/price proposals. An assessment of both the proposal and the Offeror's ability as demonstrated in its proposal to successfully accomplish the contract will be performed. Information taken into account in rating one factor may be taken into account in rating another factor if that information pertains to or impacts both factors, and irrespective of the volume of the proposal in which the information resides.

M.2 Evaluation – Commercial Items

(FAR 52.212-2) (JAN 1999)

(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:

· Technical Approach and Solution

· Corporate Experience Past Performance

· Management Approach and Solution

· Cost/Price The Technical Approach and Solution and Corporate Experience and Past Performance factors are of equal importance, followed by the Management Approach and Solution factor.

The technical factors when combined are more important than cost/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) M.3 Evaluation Process The proposals submitted in response to this Request for Proposal (RFP) will be evaluated based on the Offeror’s ability to demonstrate a feasible technical approach and solution by addressing DOS, Bureau of Information Resource Management’s (IRM) Enterprise Converged Platform (ECP) requirements as stated in RFP Section C, “Statement of Work. The Government contemplates the award of the base ECP contract to the responsive and responsible Offeror whose offer conforms to the requirements of the RFP and is evaluated as being the best value to the Government, cost or price and other factors considered.

The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unrealistic in terms of the evaluation factors, contract terms and conditions, or cost/price, either high or low, when compared to Government estimates, such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the scope, complexity and risks of the program.

M.3.1 Other Evaluation Information An initial evaluation will be conducted on all stated evaluation factors. In assessing the evaluation factors, the Government will also consider the risks associated with the approaches proposed by the Offeror.

DOS reserves the right to award to other than the lowest priced offer(s). In determining whether a technologically superior, higher priced offer represents the most advantageous offer (or one of the most advantageous offers), DOS will consider both qualitative and quantitative attributes of the proposal and will compare the strengths, weaknesses, and risks associated with each offer, which may be both quantifiable and unquantifiable. Risk is defined in three categories:

· High - Likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance.

· Moderate – Can potentially cause some disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance.

· Low – Has little potential to cause some disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance.

M.3.2 Description of Evaluation Factors The Technical/Management Proposal Volume I provides the basis for evaluation of the Offeror’s understanding of the requirement, its capability to successfully perform the contract, and its solution to satisfy all of the technical and management requirements in Section C of the solicitation. Evaluation of this factor will consider:

1. How well has the Offeror demonstrated its understanding of and approach to the program requirements?

2. How well has the Offeror demonstrated its capability and approach to providing all products and associated services listed in Section C?

3. Has the Offeror provided a credible and innovative technical approach and solution for the ECP requirements?

4. Do the Offeror’s technical and management solutions exceed requirements or address considerations in a fashion that is beneficial to the Government?

5. How effectively has the Offeror addressed its ability to meet the production and business capabilities listed in the proposal instructions? Does the Offeror’s proposal address the production and business capabilities in such a way as to suggest it can exceed requirements in a fashion that is beneficial to the Government?

The initial evaluation will be based on a complete assessment of the Offeror’s proposal including the factors listed above in M.2. Each evaluation factor is described below.

M.3.2.1 Technical Approach and Solution Factor This factor consists of two subfactors of equal importance:

· Domestic Data Center Technical Approach and Solution Factor

· Remote Office Technical Approach and Solution Factor These subfactors will be evaluated on how the Offeror has addressed the requirements in section C.4 and the key aspects of the acquisition as stated in the proposal instructions.

M.3.2.1.1 Domestic Data Center Technical Approach and Solution Factor The Domestic Data Center Technical Approach and Solution will be evaluated for meeting all of the requirements in Sections C.4.1 and C4.2. The Domestic Data Center Technical Approach and Solution Factor will consider Innovation, Networking, Storage, Computing, Backup/Disaster Recovery/Data Offshoring, Systems Management Suite, Security, and Implementation and Migration.

M.3.2.1.2 Remote Office Technical Approach and Solution Factor The Remote Office Technical Approach and Solution will be evaluated for meeting all of the requirements in Section C.4.1 and C.4.3 of the Statement of Work. The Remote Office Technical Approach and Solution Factor will consider, Innovation, Networking, Storage, Computing, UPS, Backup/Disaster Recovery/Data Offshoring, Systems Management Suite, Security, and Implementation and Migration.

M.3.2.2 Management Approach and Solution The Management Approach and Solution Factor will be evaluated according to the requirements in Sections C.5, C.6, C.7 and C.8 of the Statement of Work. The Management Approach ad Solution Factor will consider, Logistics, Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization, Maintenance, Training and Optional CLINS.

The Department’s order of precedence for small business utilization will be used for evaluating Offerors’ small and disadvantaged business subcontracting plans.

M.3.2.3 Corporate Experience and Past Performance Factor DOS will evaluate the Offeror and the two largest proposed subcontractors on past performance information provided by the Offeror on the three most recent contracts that they have performed which are similar in size, scope, and complexity to this acquisition; and on how the work performed for each past performance reference relates to the DOS requirements. At a minimum, the Offeror must have acted as the prime contractor on one of the references provided. DOS will also evaluate the three most recent and relevant contracts. Offerors with no past performance will be scored with a “neutral” rating.

M.3.2.3.1 Corporate Experience Relevance Evaluation Criteria DOS will evaluate the corporate experience described in each Offeror’s proposal and determine two evaluation ratings: relevancy rating and confidence assessment rating.

M.3.2.3.2 Past Performance References Evaluation Criteria The Government will evaluate customer satisfaction, achieved outcomes, and other relevant information related to past and current contract performance as demonstrated in each Offeror’s submitted by its clients. In addition, the Government may use available government data bases (e.g., Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS)) in their evaluation of the Offeror. In case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance, i.e., a neutral rating.

M.3.2.4 Cost/Price Factor and Business Proposal Each Offeror's cost/price proposal will be evaluated for reasonableness and completeness of the proposed contract total life-cycle cost. The Government will evaluate the reasonableness of proposed cost/price for the entire term of the contract, including all option periods, that is, total life-cycle costs. Cost/price proposals shall be evaluated for completeness meaning that all items in the LCCM are priced for the entire term of the contract including all option periods.

M.3.2.5 Business Proposal The business proposal will be evaluated for the Offeror’s commitment to accept all RFP specifications, requirements, terms, and conditions and for any exceptions taken by the Offeror to these items. All assumptions by the Offeror used in preparing the offer, including the Life-Cycle Cost Model, and any special features of the offer will be considered by the Contracting Officer.

M.3.3 Use of Contractor Support in Evaluations Contractor(s) may be utilized as members of evaluation boards per FAR 7.503(d)(14) and by participating as technical advisor(s) to a source selection board, and/or as nonvoting member(s) of a source evaluation board, but are specifically prohibited from participating as voting members on any selection or evaluation boards. Non-Government personnel assigned to any evaluation activities shall sign the non-disclosure agreement required to be signed by Government employees who are participating in the source selection.

M.4 Basis for Contract Award The Government will make award to the responsible Offeror(s) whose offer(s) conforms to the requirements of the solicitation and is evaluated as being the most advantageous to the Government, cost or price and other factors considered.

M.4.1 Best-Value Decision The Source Selection Authority (SSA) shall select the source whose proposal offers the best value to the Government in accordance with established criteria in this Section M. The best-value decision shall be based on a comparative assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation. In this regard, DOS may make trade-offs between prices, technical attributes, and the past performance contained in the Offerors’ proposals in determining which offer or offers are the most advantageous to the Government.

In reaching its decision about which proposal or proposals are most advantageous to the Government, DOS may:

· Examine costs, prices, and terms and conditions offered to assess the potential true project life-cycle costs and impacts on the ability of the Offeror to perform successfully;

· Identify hidden costs (i.e., costs to the Government not reflected in the proposal that will result from acceptance of an offer); and

· Assess the potential risk(s) (performance or price or both) and benefit(s) to the Government of each offer.

· Perform sensitivity analyses and other evaluation techniques to assess the potential risks inherent in the Offeror's pricing structure and whether a proposal is significantly unbalanced as to the prices for the one-year base period and the four one-year options.

M.4.2 Award with Discussions and Competitive Range DOS reserves the right to conduct discussions with Offerors determined to be in the competitive range. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

(End of Section M)