EPoS_Attach_2_Evaluation_Factors_for_Award_20170821.docx

ATTACHMENT 2

Solicitation SP4703-17-R-CB01 Electronic Point of Sale (EPoS) and Supporting Services E-3. Evaluation Factors for Award

ATTACHMENT 2

Solicitation SP4703-17-R-CB01 Electronic Point of Sale (EPoS) and Supporting Services E-3. Evaluation Factors for Award

Basis for award The award shall be made to the responsible firm(s) whose proposal is determined to be the best value to the Government, technical factors, past performance and prices considered. The Government’s objective is to obtain the highest quality services considered necessary to achieve the stated objectives of this acquisition, with fair and reasonable prices. Award will be made on the basis of trade-off source selection process. Firms are advised that a proposal meeting the objectives and requirements with the lowest price may not necessarily be selected if award to a higher priced proposal is determined to be most advantageous to the Government. However, between proposals evaluated as essentially technically equal, price will become the major consideration in selecting the best value. In the event of a single responsive proposal, the Government will conduct evaluation of technical acceptability of the proposal as well as pricing analysis to determine proposal merits award. Technical Acceptability is defined by meeting or exceeding the standards outlined in the Performance Work Statement (PWS).

A proposal must demonstrate to the Government's satisfaction that the Offeror will provide a solution and approach that will ensure the successful accomplishment of each stated objective in the PWS. The Government will evaluate the submissions on the basis of the material presented in the written proposals.

Award without Discussion:

The Government intends to hold discussions but reserves the right to make awards without discussion. Proposals should contain the firm’s best terms within the proposed technical and business approach, and should address all evaluation factors. Additionally, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions and request proposal revisions if it is determined to be necessary. If a competitive range is established, the Government 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 (refer to FAR 15.306(c)).

No Award:

The Government reserves the right not to make an award as a result of this solicitation if such award is determined contrary to the best interest of the Government.

Multiple offers

The Government anticipates the award of Indefinite-Delivery/Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ) contract to one or more offerors resulting from this solicitation. Offerors may submit an offer on one, two or all three of the groups. The proposal groups are listed below:

Group 1: Active Directory Services Group 2: Fixed Facility Devices Group 3: Mobile Devices

When quoting two or three groups, submission of an offer cannot be contingent upon receiving award of more than one group. Each group will be evaluated individually. Only complete proposal addressing all factors/subfactors for each group will be evaluated for an award. Government will conduct evaluation in accordance with the evaluation factors listed below for each group.

Proposal groups and evaluation factors

Evaluation Factors and Subfactors:

Factor 1: Technical Subfactor A: Technical Approach of the Solution Subfactor B: Management Approach and Capabilities Subfactor C: Key Personnel Qualification Factor 2: Solution Demonstration Factor 3: Cybersecurity Demonstration Factor 4: Past Performance Factor 5: Small Business Participation Factor 6: Price

Note: All factors are not applicable to all groups; applicability to each group is described in next section.

Evaluation Factors for Each Group

Group 1: Active Directory Services

Factor 1: Technical Factor 4: Past Performance Factor 5: Small Business Participation Factor 6: Price

Group 2: Fixed Facility Devices

Factor 1: Technical Factor 2: Solution Demonstration Factor 3: Cybersecurity Demonstration Factor 4: Past Performance Factor 5: Small Business Participation Factor 6: Price

Group : 3 Mobile Devices

Factor 1: Technical Factor 2: Solution Demonstration Factor 3: Cybersecurity Demonstration Factor 4: Past Performance Factor 5: Small Business Participation Factor 6: Price

Relative Importance of Evaluation Factors and Subfactors The Government will evaluate proposals using the factors and subfactors listed below.

Group 1: Factor 1 and Factor 4 are of equal importance. Under Factor 1, Subfactors A, B, and C are of equal importance and are used to develop the overall rating for Factor 1. Factors 1 and 4 are more important than Factor 5. All non-price evaluation factors (Factors 1, 4, and 5), when combined, are significantly more important than price. As the non-price factor ratings become more equal among proposals, the evaluated price becomes more important.

Groups 2 and 3: Factors 1, 2, 3, and 4 are of equal importance. Under Factor 1, Subfactors A, B, and C are of equal importance and are used to develop the overall rating for Factor 1. Factors 1, 2, 3, and 4 are more important than Factor 5. All non-price evaluation factors (Factors 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5), when combined, are significantly more important than price. As the non-price factor ratings become more equal among proposals, the evaluated price becomes more important.

Proposal information provided for one factor may be used to assess other factors if the Government deems if appropriate.

Description of Evaluation factors and subfactors

Group 1: Active Directory Services Factor 1: Technical Subfactor A: Technical Approach of the Solution The Government will review and evaluate the Offeror’s approach to determine how well it:

· Successfully fulfills the Government’s requirements

· Illustrates knowledge and understanding of EPoS system processes

· Demonstrates an understanding of EPoS concept of operations Each technical approach factor will be used to evaluate the degree to which the Offeror’s proposed approach meets all requirements and challenges and demonstrates a clear understanding of the EPoS solution requirements as described in the solicitation.

The success and operational capability for the EPoS solution will depend on the Offeror’s technical capability to establish a systems engineering approach that will ensure compliance with the PWS and all other technical and functional requirements proposed for the effort.

The conceptual operational view of the solution is in Performance Work Statement, 4.0 Scope.

Software Development/Configuration Approach Development/Configuration Plan The Government will review and evaluate the Offeror’s approach to address device services requirements by determine how well it:

· Demonstrates successfully meet Active Directory requirements identified in the PWS

· Identifies a clear and effective process for properly documenting, configuring and managing all development/configuration

· Demonstrates the capability of the solution to meet requirements Quality Control Plan The Government will review and evaluate the Offeror’s approach to determine how well it:

· Describes the activities and tools that the Offeror will use to ensure a process is in place to deliver quality products and services required by this solicitation

· Describes methods and procedures for adhering to a Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP); plans and procedures to meet and comply with the quality standards established in the PWS; the Offeror’s self-inspection plan; internal staffing plan; procedures to maintain quality, timeliness, and responsiveness and customer satisfaction for the entire effort Software Sustainment Approach The Government will review and evaluate the Offeror’s response to determine the Offeror has developed a strategy and management organization structure for the effective and efficient sustainment of the completed implementation. The Government will review and evaluate the Offeror's proposed management approach, including plans for program; quality; security; risk; and personnel management that will be used to ensure the successful sustainment of the resultant contract(s).

Sustainment Plan The Government will review and evaluate the Offeror’s approach to determine how well it:

· Address periodic maintenance, repair, replacement, and overhaul of existing systems, hardware, and software inclusive of Information Assurance Vulnerability Alerts (IAVA Patching)

· Identify position qualified personnel, test equipment, etc. needed to quickly diagnose and effect repairs

· Provide for the planning, performing, and documenting of system confidence tests, periodic inspections, and preventive maintenance

· Identify critical system operations and implements strategies to prevent potential failures or administrative down-time from a critical system outage

· Analyze fault histories and fault trends to proactively predict and mitigate repetitive issues Help Desk Support The Government will review and evaluate the Offeror’s approach to determine how well it:

· Provide technical assistance to the Government in resolving hardware, software failures that result in errors that hinder operations

· Review and analyze production trouble tickets and propose fixes

· Identify methods and mechanisms to actively assist system users in performing their tasks, minimizing the need to communicate with the help desk

· Identify online system documentation or other methods to provide support beyond the help desk Subfactor B: Management Approach and Capabilities The Government will review and evaluate the Offeror’s Program Management Approach to assess the Offeror’s plans for strategy and management organization structure for the effective and efficient management of contract activities to successfully fulfill the requirements of the PWS. The Offeror’s approach shall address all aspects of Program Management found within the PWS. The Government will review and evaluate how well the Offeror’s proposed Program Management Approach, including plans for program, quality, security, risk, and personnel management should ensure successful execution for the resultant contract.

The Government will review and evaluate the Offeror’s approach to determine how well it provides:

· Plan for managing the EPoS effort from a program perspective, including both information technology management and program support activities to include communication and interaction with EPoS PMO, Governance Boards, the DLA Contracting Services Office-Richmond (DCSO-R) Contracting Officer, contract administration and functional requirements staffs

· Risk Management Plan that identifies how the Offeror will proactively track, identify and mitigate risks throughout the life of the proposed effort and how risks will be communicated to appropriate EPoS program personnel

· Proposed Integrated Master Schedule to determine:

· Inclusion of significant milestones, design, development, testing, deployment and installation related activities

· Inclusion of activities related to cybersecurity compliance for certification and accreditation in the production environment

· Provision of a comprehensive, implementable timeline that aligns with the approach in the technical proposal

· Plan for personnel management including program specific training; continuity and succession management of proposed personnel labor mix; the organizational structure and the use of proposed team members and subcontractors in support of this effort

· Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) for assigning resources to the proposed effort. The WBS shall describe how the labor categories and hours proposed for each task are sufficient to meet the PWS requirements

· Plan to support and manage DOD cybersecurity requirements on an ongoing basis; physical security and personnel security including a clear description of the Offeror’s security program and structure; how security fits into the overall management plan and structure; responsibilities of personnel; and how the security plan and personnel will operate/interact with the Government security team

· Communication plan that outlines the method of providing communication to DLA program staff, management, customers and users; addresses the Offeror’s understanding of the importance of communications; and how changes will be communicated Subfactor C: Personnel Qualifications The Government will review and evaluate the Offeror’s Key Personnel resumes proposed for those resources listed as Key Personnel in the PWS: Program Manager, Cybersecurity Engineer, Senior Applications Programmer, Database Administrator, and Systems Engineer. The resumes of Key Personnel proposed will be evaluated for a clear demonstration that the proposed resources meet or exceed the education and experience requirements outlined in the PWS and List of Attachments section of the solicitation:

· Attachment 12, Group 1 Task Order 1 Active Directory Services PWS The information presented in the Offeror’s proposal together with information from any other available sources will provide the primary input for evaluation of this factor. The Government reserves the right to verify Key Personnel performance on other contracts identified by the Offeror in the proposal. The Government reserves the right to use other available information to evaluate Key Personnel. The Government may query contract references and other end user representatives regarding Key Personnel experience and quality of experience and performance.

Factor 4: Past Performance The past performance evaluation results in a performance confidence assessment rating of the Offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements derived at by considering each Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance and how well the Offeror performed on the contracts. The Past Performance assessment is based on three aspects: Recency, Relevancy and Quality. In rating past performance and deriving a performance confidence assessment rating, the following will be considered.

Recency of Prior Contracts The first aspect is to evaluate the recency of the Offeror’s past performance. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant. Past performance that is or was completed in the last three years prior to the solicitation issue date considered to be recent; experience that is less recent will not be evaluated as highly as recent experience.

Relevancy of Prior Contracts The second aspect is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired. The relevancy of the Offeror’s prior projects to the current PWS requirements as provided in the Offeror’s written proposal shall be evaluated. In establishing what is relevant for the acquisition, consideration should be given to those aspects of a Offeror’s contract history that would give the greatest ability to measure whether the Offeror will satisfy the current procurement. More relevant past performance will be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the performance confidence assessment than less relevant past performance. Common aspects of relevancy include similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, use of key personnel (for services) and extent of subcontracting/teaming. Highly relevant past performance requires that the majority of the prior contracts provided are essentially the same scope, magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Quality of Products or Services The third aspect is to establish the overall quality of the Offeror’s past performance. The past performance evaluation is to determine how well the Offeror performed on prior contracts by such indicators as the organization’s history of successful completion of projects; history of producing high-quality reports and deliverables; commitment to customer satisfaction; and history of staying on schedule and within budget. Evaluation of this aspect will be based on information provided in Past Performance Questionnaires and the Offeror’s proposal, and may include the Government’s independent verification with Offeror’s prior customers or through past performance databases such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS). If the Government’s information conflicts with assertions made in the Offeror’s proposal, the Offeror will be asked to clarify this information.

Note: Offerors demonstrating no history of Past Performance will receive a neutral rating.

Factor 5: Small Business Participation

All Offerors will be evaluated on the level of Small Business commitment that they demonstrate for the proposed acquisition. Proposals will be evaluated to ensure the required percentages for each business designation identified in the Instruction, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors, are adhered to in the Offeror’s proposal.

Minimum % for Subcategories:

In addition, the evaluation will ensure the Offerors provided:

· a detailed description of the services for each Small Business subcategory including the names of those firms and their designation,

· documentation regarding enforceable commitments to utilize each Small Business as defined in FAR Part 19, as subcontractors,

· provided the names of protégé firms being utilized in the proposal as subcontractors.

Note: Small Business Offerors may meet the requirement using work performed themselves.

This factor will be rated Acceptable or Unacceptable. Offeror’s proposal must meet entire small business participation objectives to receive an Acceptable rating. Offerors must obtain an “Acceptable” rating for Small Business Participation factor to receive consideration for award.

Factor 6: Price The total firm-fixed price used for evaluation will include all 15 years of performance period. Total price for each group will be evaluated individually. The total evaluated acquisition price is the sum of the proposed price for applicable Task Order(s) for each group. A price analysis will be conducted to determine if the total proposed price is fair and reasonable. Price or cost realism will not be evaluated.

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).

Group 2: Fixed Facility Devices Factor 1: Technical Subfactor A: Technical Approach of the Solution The Government will review and evaluate the Offeror’s approach to determine how well it:

· Successfully fulfills the Government’s requirements

· Illustrates knowledge and understanding of EPoS system processes

· Demonstrates an understanding of EPoS concept of operations Each technical approach factor will be used to evaluate the degree to which the Offeror’s proposed approach meets all requirements and challenges and demonstrates a clear understanding of the EPoS solution requirements as described in the solicitation.

The success and operational capability for the EPoS solution will depend on the Offeror’s technical capability to establish a systems engineering approach that will ensure compliance with the PWS and all other technical and functional requirements proposed for the effort.

The conceptual operational view of the solution is in Performance Work Statement, 4.0 Scope.

0. Software Development/Configuration Approach

0. Development/Configuration Plan The Government will review and evaluate the Offeror’s approach to address device services requirements by determine how well it:

· Demonstrates successfully fulfill Fixed Facility Device requirements identified in the PWS

· Identifies a clear and effective process for properly documenting, configuring and managing all development/configuration

· Demonstrates the capability of the solution to meet requirements

0. Interface Development The Government will review and evaluate the Offeror’s approach to determine how well it:

· Describes a plan for coordinating, maintaining and implementing EPoS interfaces on the EPoS side of the exchange

· Identifies a clear and effective process for properly documenting, configuring and managing all EPoS interfaces

· Demonstrates the capability of the solution to meet requirements

· Is supported by detailed explanations and illustrations

0. Hardware Capabilities The Government will review and evaluate the Offeror’s approach to address Fixed Facility Point of Sale device requirements detailed in section 5.2 of the PWS.

0. Quality Control Plan The Government will review and evaluate the Offeror’s approach to determine how well it:

· Describes the activities and tools that the Offeror will use to ensure a process is in place to deliver quality products and services required by this solicitation

· Describes methods and procedures for adhering to a Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP); plans and procedures to meet and comply with the quality standards established in the PWS; the Offeror’s self-inspection plan; internal staffing plan; procedures to maintain quality, timeliness, and responsiveness and customer satisfaction for the entire effort

0. Software Sustainment Approach The Government will review and evaluate the Offeror’s response to determine the Offeror has developed a strategy and management organization structure for the effective and efficient sustainment of the completed implementation. The Government will review and evaluate the Offeror's proposed management approach, including plans for program; quality; security; risk; and personnel management that will be used to ensure the successful sustainment of the resultant contract.

1. Sustainment Plan The Government will review and evaluate the Offeror’s approach to determine how well it:

· Address periodic maintenance, repair, replacement, and overhaul of existing systems, hardware, and software inclusive of Information Assurance Vulnerability Alerts (IAVA Patching)

· Identify position qualified personnel, test equipment, etc. needed to quickly diagnose and effect repairs

· Provide for the planning, performing, and documenting of system confidence tests, periodic inspections, and preventive maintenance

· Identify critical system operations and implements strategies to prevent potential failures or administrative down-time from a critical system outage

· Analyze fault histories and fault trends to proactively predict and mitigate repetitive issues

1. Help Desk Support The Government will review and evaluate the Offeror’s approach to determine how well it:

· Provide technical assistance to the Government in resolving hardware, software failures that result in errors that hinder operations

· Review and analyze production trouble tickets and propose fixes

· Identify methods and mechanisms to actively assist system users in performing their tasks, minimizing the need to communicate with the help desk

· Identify online system documentation or other methods to provide support beyond the help desk

0. Solution Installation Approach

2. Installation Plan The Government will review and evaluate the Offeror’s approach to determine how well it:

· Exhibits an understanding of the work required under the contract

· Addresses the worldwide implementation of EPoS

· Demonstrates an understanding of customer’s business processes

· Enables seamless conversion from the current systems environment to the replacement system

· Addresses the identification and development of required information exchanges

· Implements EPoS within the period identified in the integrated master schedule

· Minimizes or mitigates interruptions to the operational environment

0. Subfactor B: Management Approach and Capabilities The Government will review and evaluate the Offeror’s Program Management approach to assess the Offeror’s plans for strategy and management organization structure for the effective and efficient management of contract activities to successfully fulfill the requirements of the PWS. The Offeror’s approach shall address all aspects of Program Management found within the PWS. The Government will review and evaluate how well the Offeror’s proposed Program Management Approach, including plans for program, quality, security, risk, and personnel management should ensure successful execution for the resultant contract.

The Government will review and evaluate the Offeror’s approach to determine how well it provides:

· Plan for managing the EPoS effort from a program perspective, including both information technology management and program support activities to include communication and interaction with EPoS PMO, Governance Boards, the DLA Contracting Services Office-Richmond (DCSO-R) Contracting Officer, contract administration and functional requirements staffs

· Risk Management Plan that identifies how the Offeror will proactively track, identify and mitigate risks throughout the life of the proposed effort and how risks will be communicated to appropriate EPoS program personnel

· Proposed Integrated Master Schedule to determine:

· Inclusion of significant milestones, design, development, testing, deployment and installation related activities

· Inclusion of activities related to cybersecurity compliance for certification and accreditation in the production environment

· Provision of a comprehensive, implementable timeline that aligns with the approach in the technical proposal

· Plan for personnel management including program specific training; continuity and succession management of proposed personnel labor mix; the organizational structure and the use of proposed team members and subcontractors in support of this effort

· Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) for assigning resources to the proposed effort. The WBS shall describe how the labor categories and hours proposed for each task are sufficient to meet the PWS requirements

· Plan to support and manage DOD cybersecurity requirements on an ongoing basis; physical security and personnel security including a clear description of the Offeror’s security program and structure; how security fits into the overall management plan and structure; responsibilities of personnel; and how the security plan and personnel will operate/interact with the Government security team

· Communication plan that outlines the method of providing communication to DLA program staff, management, customers and users; addresses the Offeror’s understanding of the importance of communications; and how changes will be communicated

0. Subfactor C: Personnel Qualifications The Government will review and evaluate the Offeror’s Key Personnel resumes proposed for those resources listed as Key Personnel in the PWS: Program Manager, Cybersecurity Engineer, Senior Applications Programmer, Database Administrator, and Systems Engineer. The resumes of Key Personnel proposed will be evaluated for a clear demonstration that the proposed resources meet or exceed the education and experience requirements outlined in the PWS and List of Attachments section of the solicitation:

· Attachment 13, Group 2 Task Order 1 Fixed Software Development PWS

· Attachment 14, Group 2 Task Order 2 Fixed Software Sustainment PWS

· Attachment 15, Group 2 Task Order 3 Fixed Installation and Sustainment PWS The information presented in the Offeror’s proposal together with information from any other available sources will provide the primary input for evaluation of this factor. The Government reserves the right to verify Key Personnel performance on other contracts identified by the Offeror in the proposal. The Government reserves the right to use other available information to evaluate Key Personnel. The Government may query contract references and other end user representatives regarding Key Personnel experience and quality of experience and performance.

0. Factor 2: Solution Demonstration The Solution Demonstration will be evaluated in two steps and the Offeror will assigned with an adjectival rating based on result of the demonstration. Refer to attachment 8, Solution Demonstration, provided in Attachments section of the solicitation for further details.

Step 1: The Government will assess whether an Offeror’s Solution Demonstration is deemed compliant with the instructions and presents a demonstration that is “materially the same” as their proposed Technical Approach.

Step 2: If the Offeror’s Solution Demonstration is evaluated materially the same, the Government will evaluate Offeror’s demonstration of Scenario(s) applicable to this group.

0. Factor 3: Cybersecurity Demonstration The Government will evaluate Offerors’ execution and assessment of the two Security Technical Implementation Guides (STIGs) attached to the solicitation. The Government will evaluate result of the demonstration. Refer to attachment 9, Cybersecurity Demonstration, provided in Attachments section of the solicitation for further details.

The Government will evaluate the percentage compliance of the Offeror’s solution with each STIG as presented. The Cybersecurity Demonstration will be used to gauge Offeror’s solution compliance with applicable STIGs as delivered for the demonstration. The delta between the solution percentage and 100% requirement provides a measure of the risk incurred to bring the solution into 100% compliance. 100% compliance will receive the highest rating for the demonstration as stated in the attachment.

Factor 4: Past Performance The past performance evaluation results in a performance confidence assessment rating of the Offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements derived at by considering each Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance and how well the Offeror performed on the contracts. The Past Performance assessment is based on three aspects: Recency, Relevancy and Quality. In rating past performance and deriving a performance confidence assessment rating, the following will be considered.

2. Recency of Prior Contracts The first aspect is to evaluate the recency of the Offeror’s past performance. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant. Past performance that is or was completed in the last three years prior to the solicitation issue date considered to be recent; experience that is less recent will not be evaluated as highly as recent experience.

2. Relevancy of Prior Contracts The second aspect is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired. The relevancy of the Offeror’s prior projects to the current PWS requirements as provided in the Offeror’s written proposal shall be evaluated. In establishing what is relevant for the acquisition, consideration should be given to those aspects of a Offeror’s contract history that would give the greatest ability to measure whether the Offeror will satisfy the current procurement. More relevant past performance will be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the performance confidence assessment than less relevant past performance. Common aspects of relevancy include similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, use of key personnel (for services) and extent of subcontracting/teaming. Highly relevant past performance requires that the majority of the prior contracts provided are essentially the same scope, magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

2. Quality of Products or Services The third aspect is to establish the overall quality of the Offeror’s past performance. The past performance evaluation is to determine how well the Offeror performed on prior contracts by such indicators as the organization’s history of successful completion of projects; history of producing high-quality reports and deliverables; commitment to customer satisfaction; and history of staying on schedule and within budget. Evaluation of this aspect will be based on information provided in Past Performance Questionnaires and the Offeror’s proposal, and may include the Government’s independent verification with Offeror’s prior customers or through past performance databases such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS). If the Government’s information conflicts with assertions made in the Offeror’s proposal, the Offeror will be asked to clarify this information.

Note: Offerors demonstrating no history of Past Performance will receive a neutral rating.

Factor 5: Small Business Participation

All Offerors will be evaluated on the level of Small Business commitment that they demonstrate for the proposed acquisition. Proposals will be evaluated to ensure the required percentages for each business designation identified in the Instruction, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors, are adhered to in the Offeror’s proposal.

Minimum % for Subcategories:

· a detailed description of the services for each Small Business subcategory including the names of those firms and their designation,

· documentation regarding enforceable commitments to utilize each Small Business as defined in FAR Part 19, as subcontractors,

· provided the names of protégé firms being utilized in the proposal as subcontractors.

Note: Small Business Offerors may meet the requirement using work performed themselves.

This factor will be rated Acceptable or Unacceptable. Offeror’s proposal must meet entire small business participation objectives to receive an Acceptable rating. Offerors must obtain an “Acceptable” rating for Small Business Participation factor to receive consideration for award.

Factor 6: Price The total firm-fixed price used for evaluation will include all 15 years of performance period. Total price for each group will be evaluated individually. The total evaluated acquisition price is the sum of the proposed price for applicable Task Order(s) for each group. A price analysis will be conducted to determine if the total proposed price is fair and reasonable. Price or cost realism will not be evaluated.

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).

Group 3: Mobile Devices Factor 1: Technical Subfactor A: Technical Approach of the Solution The Government will review and evaluate the Offeror’s approach to determine how well it:

· Successfully fulfills the Government’s requirements

· Illustrates knowledge and understanding of EPoS system processes

· Demonstrates an understanding of EPoS concept of operations Each technical approach factor will be used to evaluate the degree to which the Offeror’s proposed approach meets all requirements and challenges and demonstrates a clear understanding of the EPoS solution requirements as described in the solicitation.

The success and operational capability for the EPoS solution will depend on the Offeror’s technical capability to establish a systems engineering approach that will ensure compliance with the PWS and all other technical and functional requirements proposed for the effort.

The conceptual operational view of the solution is in Performance Work Statement, 4.0 Scope.

2. Software Development/Configuration Approach Development/Configuration Plan The Government will review and evaluate the Offeror’s approach to address device services requirements by determine how well it:

· Demonstrates successfully fulfill Mobile Device requirements identified in the PWS

· Identifies a clear and effective process for properly documenting, configuring and managing all development/configuration

· Demonstrates the capability of the solution to meet requirements Interface Development Plan The Government will review and evaluate the Offeror’s approach to determine how well it:

· Describes a plan that will coordinate, maintain and implement EPoS interfaces on the EPoS side of the exchange

· Identifies a clear and effective process for properly documenting, configuring and managing all EPoS interfaces

· Demonstrates the capability of the solution to meet requirements

· Is thoroughly supported by detailed explanations and illustrations Hardware Capabilities The Government will review and evaluate the Offeror’s mobile Point of Sale Device meets the requirements detailed in section 5.5 of the PWS that addresses mobile device requirements.

Quality Control Plan The Government will review and evaluate the Offeror’s approach to determine how well it:

· Describes the activities and tools that the Offeror will use to ensure a process is in place to deliver quality products and services required by this solicitation

· Describes methods and procedures for adhering to a Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP); plans and procedures to meet and comply with the quality standards established in the PWS; the Offeror’s self-inspection plan; internal staffing plan; procedures to maintain quality, timeliness, and responsiveness and customer satisfaction for the entire effort Software Sustainment Approach The Government will review and evaluate the Offeror’s response to determine the Offeror has developed a strategy and management organization structure for the effective and efficient sustainment of the completed implementation. The Government will review and evaluate the Offeror's proposed management approach, including plans for program; quality; security; risk; and personnel management that will be used to ensure the successful sustainment of the resultant contract.

Sustainment Plan The Government will review and evaluate the Offeror’s sustainment plan that documents how the Offeror proposes to:

· Address periodic maintenance, repair, replacement, and overhaul of existing systems, hardware, and software inclusive of Information Assurance Vulnerability Alerts (IAVA Patching)

· Identify position qualified personnel, test equipment, etc. needed to quickly diagnose and effect repairs

· Provide for the planning, performing, and documenting of system confidence tests, periodic inspections, and preventive maintenance

· Identify critical system operations and implements strategies to prevent potential failures or administrative down-time from a critical system outage

· Analyze fault histories and fault trends to proactively predict and mitigate repetitive issues Help Desk Support The Government will review and evaluate the Offeror’s approach to determine how well it:

· Provide technical assistance to the Government in resolving hardware, software failures that result in errors that hinder operations

· Review and analyze production trouble tickets and propose fixes

· Identify methods and mechanisms to actively assist system users in performing their tasks, minimizing the need to communicate with the help desk

· Identify online system documentation or other methods to provide support beyond the help desk Device Replacement Approach and Plan The Government will review and evaluate the Offeror’s approach to determine how well it:

· Exhibits an understanding of the work required under the contract

· Addresses the worldwide implementation of EPoS

· Demonstrates an understanding of providing replacement devices within required time periods

· Enables seamless conversion from the current systems environment to the replacement system

· Addresses the identification and development of required information exchanges

· Implements EPoS within the period identified in the integrated master schedule

· Minimizes or mitigates interruptions to the operational environment Subfactor B: Management Approach and Capabilities The Government will review and evaluate the Offeror’s Program Management approach to assess the Offeror’s plans for strategy and management organization structure for the effective and efficient management of contract activities to successfully fulfill the requirements of the PWS. The Offeror’s approach shall address all aspects of Program Management found within the PWS. The Government will review and evaluate how well the Offeror’s proposed Program Management Approach, including plans for program, quality, security, risk, and personnel management should ensure successful execution for the resultant contract.

The Government will review and evaluate the Offeror’s approach to determine how well it provides:

· Plan for managing the EPoS effort from a program perspective, including both information technology management and program support activities to include communication and interaction with EPoS PMO, Governance Boards, the DLA Contracting Services Office-Richmond (DCSO-R) Contracting Officer, contract administration and functional requirements staffs

· Risk Management Plan that identifies how the Offeror will proactively track, identify and mitigate risks throughout the life of the proposed effort and how risks will be communicated to appropriate EPoS program personnel

· Proposed Integrated Master Schedule to determine:

· Inclusion of significant milestones, design, development, testing, deployment and installation related activities

· Inclusion of activities related to cybersecurity compliance for certification and accreditation in the production environment

· Provision of a comprehensive, implementable timeline that aligns with the approach in the technical proposal

· Plan for personnel management including program specific training; continuity and succession management of proposed personnel labor mix; the organizational structure and the use of proposed team members and subcontractors in support of this effort

· Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) for assigning resources to the proposed effort. The WBS shall describe how the labor categories and hours proposed for each task are sufficient to meet the PWS requirements

· Plan to support and manage DOD cybersecurity requirements on an ongoing basis; physical security and personnel security including a clear description of the Offeror’s security program and structure; how security fits into the overall management plan and structure; responsibilities of personnel; and how the security plan and personnel will operate/interact with the Government security team

· Communication plan that outlines the method of providing communication to DLA program staff, management, customers and users; addresses the Offeror’s understanding of the importance of communications; and how changes will be communicated Subfactor C: Personnel Qualifications The Government will review and evaluate the Offeror’s Key Personnel resumes proposed for those resources listed as Key Personnel in the PWS: Program Manager, Cybersecurity Engineer, Senior Applications Programmer, Database Administrator, and Systems Engineer. The resumes of Key Personnel proposed will be evaluated for a clear demonstration that the proposed resources meet or exceed the education and experience requirements outlined in the PWS and List of Attachments section of the solicitation:

· Attachment 16, Group 3 Task Order 1 Mobile Device Integration PWS

The information presented in the Offeror’s proposal together with information from any other available sources will provide the primary input for evaluation of this factor. The Government reserves the right to verify Key Personnel performance on other contracts identified by the Offeror in the proposal. The Government reserves the right to use other available information to evaluate Key Personnel. The Government may query contract references and other end user representatives regarding Key Personnel experience and quality of experience and performance.

Factor 2: Solution Demonstration The Solution Demonstration will be evaluated in two steps and the Offeror will assigned with an adjectival rating based on result of the demonstration. Refer to attachment 8, Solution Demonstration, provided in Attachments section of the solicitation for further details.

Step 1: The Government will assess whether an Offeror’s Solution Demonstration is deemed compliant with the instructions and presents a demonstration that is “materially the same” as their proposed Technical Approach.

Step 2: If the Offeror’s Solution Demonstration is evaluated materially the same, the Government will evaluate Offeror’s demonstration of Scenario(s) applicable to this group.

Factor 3: Cybersecurity Demonstration The Government will evaluate Offerors’ execution and assessment of the two Security Technical Implementation Guides (STIGs) attached to the solicitation. The Government will evaluate result of the demonstration. Refer to attachment 9, Cybersecurity Demonstration, provided in Attachments section of the solicitation for further details.

The Government will evaluate the percentage compliance of the Offeror’s solution with each STIG as presented. The Cybersecurity Demonstration will be used to gauge Offeror’s solution compliance with applicable STIGs as delivered for the demonstration. The delta between the solution percentage and 100% requirement provides a measure of the risk incurred to bring the solution into 100% compliance. 100% compliance will receive the highest rating for the demonstration as stated in the attachment.

Factor 4: Past Performance The past performance evaluation results in a performance confidence assessment rating of the Offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements derived at by considering each Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance and how well the Offeror performed on the contracts. The Past Performance assessment is based on three aspects: Recency, Relevancy and Quality. In rating past performance and deriving a performance confidence assessment rating, the following will be considered.

Recency of Prior Contracts The first aspect is to evaluate the recency of the Offeror’s past performance. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant. Past performance that is or was completed in the last three years prior to the solicitation issue date considered to be recent; experience that is less recent will not be evaluated as highly as recent experience.

Relevancy of Prior Contracts The second aspect is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired. The relevancy of the Offeror’s prior projects to the current PWS requirements as provided in the Offeror’s written proposal shall be evaluated. In establishing what is relevant for the acquisition, consideration should be given to those aspects of an Offeror’s contract history that would give the greatest ability to measure whether the Offeror will satisfy the current procurement. More relevant past performance will be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the performance confidence assessment than less relevant past performance. Common aspects of relevancy include similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, use of key personnel (for services) and extent of subcontracting/teaming. Highly relevant past performance requires that the majority of the prior contracts provided are essentially the same scope, magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Quality of Products or Services The third aspect is to establish the overall quality of the Offeror’s past performance. The past performance evaluation is to determine how well the Offeror performed on prior contracts by such indicators as the organization’s history of successful completion of projects; history of producing high-quality reports and deliverables; commitment to customer satisfaction; and history of staying on schedule and within budget. Evaluation of this aspect will be based on information provided in Past Performance Questionnaires and the Offeror’s proposal, and may include the Government’s independent verification with Offeror’s prior customers or through past performance databases such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS). If the Government’s information conflicts with assertions made in the Offeror’s proposal, the Offeror will be asked to clarify this information.

Note: Offerors demonstrating no history of Past Performance will receive a neutral rating.

Factor 5: Small Business Participation All Offerors will be evaluated on the level of Small Business commitment that they demonstrate for the proposed acquisition. Proposals will be evaluated to ensure the required percentages for each business designation identified in the Instruction, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors, are adhered to in the Offeror’s proposal.

Minimum % for Subcategories:

· a detailed description of the services for each Small Business subcategory including the names of those firms and their designation,

· documentation regarding enforceable commitments to utilize each Small Business as defined in FAR Part 19, as subcontractors,

· provided the names of protégé firms being utilized in the proposal as subcontractors.

Note: Small Business Offerors may meet the requirement using work performed themselves.

This factor will be rated Acceptable or Unacceptable. Offeror’s proposal must meet entire small business participation objectives to receive an Acceptable…