Award_Notification_-_Acquisition_Support.docx

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

AWARD NOTIFICATION

VIA FBO AWARD NOTICE

This notice is the official award notification for this solicitation. We appreciate your interest and participation in this opportunity. This was not an easy requirement to respond to. Offerors who did best were clearly prepared based on the guidance provided as early as March 11, 2016 that informed of the need to have knowledge of the Commerce Acquisition processes. This explanation of award is intended to provide you a complete understanding of how the evaluation of proposals were conducted, consistent with the requirements and evaluation criteria specified in the solicitation. If you have any questions about the information provided herein, please contact the Contracting Officer at akram@doc.gov.

BACKGROUND

Solicited as a single award, Requirements contract opportunity, this requirement was solicited through the Government wide Point of Entry at www.fbo.gov. The Pre-Solicitation Synopsis was published on March 11, 2016 and the solicitation was issued on August 11, 2016. Potential Offerors were instructed to provide their best and final proposal at time of initial response based on the Government, while reserving the right to hold discussions, intended to award without holding discussions. The solicitation closed on August 30, 2016

In determining which proposal(s) provide the best value to the Government, an integrated evaluation and assessment of offers was conducted. The evaluation consisted of three factors; Technical, Past Performance and Cost/Price. The Technical factor is more important than Past Performance and when the two non-price factors (Technical and Past Performance) are combined, they are approximately equal to price.

This procurement was a total small business set-aside for SDVOSB and/or HUBzone small business concerns.

OFFERS

There was a tremendous amount of competition for this opportunity. A total of 34 offers were received from over the entire country.

EVALUATIONS

All proposals were thoroughly evaluated. Each Volume of information was evaluated by an independent team.

Volume I: Technical Capability Proposals. An adjectival rating system was used based on the identified strengths, weaknesses and/or deficiencies identified in the proposal as related to the technical elements required in Section M of the solicitation. Seven (7) elements were required in response to the Technical Factor. All seven elements; 1) Capabilities and Approach, 2) Experience, 3) Employee Recruitment, Retention and Training Plan, 4) Management Plan, 5) Key Personnel, 6) Scenario #1* and 7) Scenario #2** were considered equally in determining the overall Technical Factor rating.

*Scenario #1 was scored using a quantitative method in assessing the level of strength, weakness or deficiency. The solicitation required offerors to submit a “mock” pre-award contract file including the required documents necessary for completeness and accuracy in accordance with FAR, CAR and CAM requirements. Proper forms, required documents, and identification of required reviews and processes were assessed. There are 52 items that were required in the acquisition package. An offeror who identified a correct item received a point. Items not identified received no points. For example; based on the scenario a CD-570 Small Business Set-Aside Review is required (CAM 1307.1). Offerors who identified the need for a CD-570 received a point. Further, offerors who identified that the CD-570 is required to be reviewed by the Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBU) received a second point. In few cases, offerors provided additional documentation, reviews, processes beyond the 52 scored. In these cases, if the additional information had merit, each item received a ½ point. If they did not have merit, they received no points. For example, a more common submission was a D&F for the use of Options. The scenario was silent on acquisition being a multi-year or Option contract so it was not one of the 52 items being checked. However, offerors who identified this showed wherewithal in the Federal and DOC acquisition processes, having merit and receiving a ½ point. It is also noted that all offerors started with 5 points. The 5 required items; Purchase Request, IGCE, SOW, 508 Checklist and IT/Security Checklist were given in the solicitation. A percentage was assigned to each scenario based on the total raw score divided by 52. Offerors receiving a percentage above 75% showed a thorough understanding of how to develop a pre-award acquisition file and this element was a significant strength in the overall technical assessment. Offerors receiving 51-75% met the requirement and were assessed as a strength. Those receiving 26-50% marginally met the requirement and were assessed as a weakness. And those who received 1-25% (Note: the lowest any offer could receive is 9.6% due to the 5 items given) did not meet the requirement and was assessed as a significant weakness or deficiency. The following is the distribution of scoring for scenario #1.

**Scenario #2 was scored using a qualitative method. Evaluation of scenario #2 was based on the reasonableness and methods of collecting spend and demand data, analysis performed using that data and the conclusions/recommendations reached as it relates to pursuing a Departmental strategic sourcing initiative. The required business case was assessed based on the completeness, organization and information presented, if analysis of spend/demand or market trends were incorporated and what drove any courses of actions or recommendations. Was the business case supported by the data and was a compelling argument made in support of the recommendation. An evaluation of the specific data elements or outcome was not part of the assessment. For example, if the spend/demand analysis found that the Department bought $53 million in furniture over the past 3 years or $46 million, there was no positive or negative assessment. What was assessed is the spend data that was identified to reach those numbers, how it was organized, by bureau, by product, etc, and if the sources for the data were legitimate. Similarly, whether the recommendation was to move forward with a strategic sourcing initiative or not, received no positive or negative assessment. What was assessed is that the recommendation was reasonable and based on the analysis of the data presented. Based on the qualitative assessment in meeting the requirements outlined in the solicitation, an overall assessment of this element was made and assigned one of the following scores; Excellent, a significant strength – provided a detailed response that demonstrated a thorough understanding and potential benefits of strategic sourcing initiatives, including detailed spend/demand data gathering and analysis. Satisfactory, a strength – provided a basic understanding of strategic sourcing initiatives and adequate ability to collect spend/demand data and provide at least minimum required analysis. Marginal, a weakness– provided less than basic understanding of strategic sourcing initiatives and/or the analysis required to support such programs, and/or the business case presented did not provide reasonable information/trends or recommendations supported by the data. Unsatisfactory, a significant weakness or deficiency – did not provide any spend/demand data or the data provided was not linked to any reasonable/reliable source, and/or no business case was presented. The following is the distribution of scoring for scenario #2:

Unsatisfactory: 3

After consideration of the seven technical elements strengths, weaknesses and deficiencies identified in the technical evaluation, a Technical Factor rating was assessed. The following is the distribution of the Technical Factor ratings:

Unsatisfactory: 3

Volume II: Past Performance Proposals. An adjectival rating system was used based on the identified relevancy of similar efforts and how well the offeror performed with regard to timeliness, responsiveness, quality and cost control as stated in Section M of the solicitation. The adjectival rating system included ratings of; Excellent, Satisfactory, Neutral, Marginal and Unsatisfactory. The following is the distribution of ratings:

Volume III: Price and Business Proposals. Proposed prices were evaluated but not scored. Proposed prices identified in Section B of the solicitation (the hourly rate per labor category) were evaluated by multiplying the price per respective year by the Government’s estimated labor quantities required in each corresponding respective year -- years one (1) through five (5). The totals for each labor category for the five (5) years were then be added together to reach a single aggregated price per region. There were two regions—Region 1 and Region 2. The Region 2 aggregated price was then weighted, 1.6 to 1 to the Region 1 aggregated price. Meaning, the aggregate price for Region 2 was multiplied by 1.6 to reach a total Region 2 value. Regions 1& 2 prices were then combined to reach a single evaluated price per offer. As stated in the solicitation, the Government’s estimated labor hour quantities were not disclosed.

The distribution of evaluated costs is:

$17,400,245 – $42,359,152

AWARD

The determination of best value based on the criteria stated in the solicitation, and award was made to the following offeror:

Voigt-Peters Dumouchelle Arlington, Virginia

SDVOSB

Evaluated Price: $22,203,527

Contract: SS1301-17-CQ-0002

2 | Page image1.gif