Amendment_000005_Track_Changes.pdf

Page 58 of 68 RFP: SECHQ1-16-R-0017-000005

Section L - Proposal Instructions

L.1 Submission of Proposals Offerors are to submit the Go/No-Go Factors Response Form in Attachment 10 to jolsoni@sec.gov and bovaj@sec.gov no later than 12:00 noon ET, June 20, 2016. Offerors shall clearly identify how the information provided in its response satisfies the Go/No-Go factors listed in Section M. The Offerors should provide sufficient supporting data on how they meet the Go/No-Go factors. The Government will then determine eligibility for each Offeror and notify each Offeror by COB, June 28, 2016 of their eligibility to participate in the rest of the RFP process.

Offerors that receive a “Pass” rating on the Go/No-Go Factors will be eligible to submit Technical and Price Proposals.

L.2 RFP Questions. Any questions regarding this solicitation shall be submitted to jolsoni@sec.gov and bovaj@sec.gov no later than July 1, 2016 by 12:00 noon ET. We cannot assure that answers to questions submitted after this deadline will be provided. Any questions and/or comments received are not considered proprietary and will not be protected by the Government. All questions shall be submitted in the format provided in Attachment 11 – Question and Answer (Q&A) Template.

L.3 Proposal Submission. The Offerors shall submit three separate responses, Go/No-Go Factors Response Form (Attachment 10), Technical Proposal, and Price Proposal, as defined in the following section. Offerors who receive notification of eligibility to participate in the RFP process beyond the go/no-go factors shall submit the Technical and Price Volumes of their proposals electronically to jolsoni@sec.gov and bovaj@sec.gov no later than July 25, 2016 by 12:00 noon ET. The maximum size limit per email submission is 12MB.

The Go/No-Go, Technical, and Price Proposals shall be separate and complete so that evaluation of one may be accomplished independently of the others.

Offerors responding to this RFP must provide a proposal that consists of a Technical volume and a separate Price volume. To aid the evaluations, proposals shall be clearly and concisely written as well as indexed (cross-indexed as appropriate) and logically assembled. Prospective Offerors are asked to bear in mind that all material submitted should be directly pertinent to the requirements of this RFP. Extraneous narratives, elaborate brochures, uninformative public relations material and so forth, shall not be submitted. All pages of each part shall be appropriately numbered and identified with the name of the Offeror, the date, and the solicitation number to the extent practical. The first page of each volume should have the following contact information:

A. Complete Business Name and Mailing Address; and B. Contact Name, phone number, and email address.

In responding to this RFP, it is the Offeror’s responsibility to provide current, complete and accurate information in its proposal. If in reviewing the proposal, the Government identifies or otherwise learns that the provided proposal information is not accurate or misrepresents the Offeror’s status or capabilities, that information may be used by the Contracting Officer as part of the Offeror’s responsibility determination and could result in the Offeror not being eligible for award.

Proposals shall use 12 point Times New Roman font (with the exception of pre-printed product literature).

No reduction in font size is permitted except for organization charts or other graphic illustrations. In those instances where reduction is allowable, Offerors shall ensure that the print is easily readable; no less than

Page 66 of 68 RFP: SECHQ1-16-R-0017-000005

M.1 General In accordance with FAR 52.215-1(f), the Government intends to award one contract to the responsible Offeror whose proposal represents the best value, price and other factors considered. Best value is defined in FAR Part 2 as the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the Government’s estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirement. The Contracting Officer may consider award to other than the lowest price Offeror or other than the highest technically rated Offeror when in the best interest of the SEC. The Government will conduct the best value analysis using the factors listed in Section M, above. In performing its best value analysis, the Government will compare any relevant differences among the evaluated proposals to determine which proposal offers the overall best value. This effort will include comparing the strengths, weaknesses and risks associated with each offer.

The Government reserves the right to award the contract based upon initial offers received, without discussion or negotiations of such offers. Therefore, the initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a technical and cost/price standpoint. In addition, it is important that each offer fully address the requirements stated in this RFP, including any exceptions thereto or deviations therefrom. The SEC also reserves the right to conduct discussions with Offerors included in the competitive range.

M.2 Evaluation Process After evaluating all proposals against the requirements of the solicitation in accordance with Section M.3, the Government may establish a competitive range for the purpose of holding discussions with and/or requesting oral presentations from the most highly-rated Offerors. The Contracting Officer may determine that the number of most highly rated proposals that might otherwise be included in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted. In this case, 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.

M.3 Evaluation Factors for Award

M.3.1 Go/No-Go Factor

The following Go/No-Go factors will be evaluated strictly on a pass/fail basis:

Go/No-Go Factor 1: The Prime Offeror shall have built a system/environment similar (or larger) in size, scope, and complexity as EDGAR in the last (5) five years? See Attachment 10 for criteria details related to size, scope, and complexity of EDGAR. Offerors must meet all of the criteria in order to receive a “Pass” rating.

Go/No-Go Factor 2: The Prime Offeror shall have completed a contract for gathering a full set of functional and non-functional requirements for a system/environment similar (or larger) in size, scope, and complexity as EDGAR in the last five (5) years? See Attachment 10 for criteria details related to size, scope, and complexity of EDGAR. Offerors must meet all of the criteria in order to receive a “Pass” rating.

M.3.2 Evaluation of Other Non-Price Factors

Factor 1: Technical Approach (as articulated in the technical proposal defined in Section L.3.2).

Each Offeror will be evaluated on its expertise, capabilities, and methodologies for program management, business process engineering, technical analysis, and creating a complete high-

Page 67 of 68 RFP: SECHQ1-16-R-0017-000005 quality functional and non-functional requirements document. Each Offeror will also be evaluated on:

The extent to which its approach demonstrates an ability to meet or exceed the requirements of the Solicitation;

The creativity and innovation in its approach;

The maturity and completeness of its methodology; and Its capability to create the necessary documents in the time allotted for a system of this size, scope, and complexity.

Technical artifacts and plans. The SEC will treat actual artifacts and samples in the same manner when evaluating proposals.

Factor 2: Personnel. Each Offeror will be evaluated on the qualifications of its key personnel as related to the requirements of the Solicitation. Each Offeror will also be evaluated on:

The ability of its proposed organizational structure to complete all contract requirements within the designated period of performance;

The ability to recruit, train, and retain high quality personnel, including the turnover rate experienced by the business unit (The turnover rate is defined as the number of personnel who departed (regardless of reason) divided by the average number of personnel during the period); and

Its reach-back capabilities and approach to staffing expertise and support that is not needed on a fixed basis, including:

o The breadth and relevance of proposed labor categories for expertise and support not needed on a fixed basis;

o The approach for providing personnel with the technical and analytical capabilities as they are required; and o Any innovative approaches to providing staffing pools for expected requirements.

Factor 3: Past Performance. Each Offeror will be evaluated on their demonstrated past performance as it relates to comparable programs and their ability, expertise, capabilities, and capacity to effectively deliver high quality and timely service and solutions. In conducting the past performance assessment, the SEC may use data obtained from other sources as well as that provided in the proposal. Past performance information that is more recent and more relevant to the solicitation requirements (as indicated by the size, scope and complexity of the efforts) may be evaluated more favorably than past performance that is less recent and less relevant. The past performance evaluation will focus on the relevance to the solicitation as indicated by the size, scope and complexity of the efforts. Lack of relevant past performance will result in assignment of a neutral past performance rating indicating neither a favorable nor unfavorable evaluation.

Factor 4: Small Business Participation. Each Offeror will be evaluated on the extent of small business utilization, in accordance with the small business utilization goals listed in Section L.3.3.

Offerors small business plans will be evaluated based upon their ability to meet or exceed each small business utilization goal listed in Section L.3.3., as well as their ability to meet or exceed the overall goal of 25% small business subcontracting utilization.

M.3.32 Price Price evaluation will consist of determining reasonableness through one or more methods such as competition, comparison of the Offeror’s total evaluated prices or labor rates, comparison with the IGCE, or comparison of previously proposed prices and previous Government contract prices for the same or

Page 68 of 68 RFP: SECHQ1-16-R-0017-000005 similar services. Offerors’ prices may also be reviewed to determine if they are realistic and indicate an understanding of the contract requirements.

The SEC will evaluate each Offer’s pricing for the Base Period, each Option CLIN, and the total price of all CLINs including options.