QSU SSBR202500001 Revised Sections L and M.pdf

Document Number: SSBR202500001 Page 42 of 45

Section L - Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Offerors or Respondents

Section L - Instructions, conditions, and notices to Offerors or Respondents Section M Basis for Award Evaluation Factors for Award

Section L - Instructions, conditions, and notices to Offerors or Respondents Instructions

1. Submission of Offers

1.1 Dates: All proposals submitted must include USCP RFP Number: QSU SSBR202500001, offeror’s name, address, phone number, and the name, title, phone and facsimile numbers of persons authorized to negotiate on the offeror’s behalf. The offeror’s proposal shall state the following items: UEI, Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN), CAGE Code and that the proposal is valid for ninety days from date of submission. The name of the official authorized to bind the offeror’s company shall be clearly identified and if an amendment(s) is issued, the offeror must acknowledge acceptance of the amendment. Only complete packages submitted on or before 2:00 pm Eastern Time on December 20, 2024 will be considered. The submission must be emailed to this address:

Timothy.Stinson@uscp.gov and Alexander.Cooper@uscp.gov

Timothy Stinson, Sr. Contract Specialist, USCP, Office of Acquisition Management 499 South Capitol Street SW, 7th floor, Washington, D.C. 20003-4013

Alexander Cooper, Contracting Officer, USCP, Office of Acquisition Management 499 South Capitol Street SW, 7th floor, Washington, D.C. 20003-4013

1.2 For Further Information Contact: General administrative and programmatic questions may be directed to Mr. Timothy Stinson at Timothy.Stinson@uscp.gov and Mr. Alexander Cooper at Alexander.Cooper@uscp.gov. To allow for sufficient time to address questions, all questions must be submitted via email no later than 11:00 am Eastern Time on December 6, 2024. Response to the questions will be posted on SAM.gov via RFP amendment. When submitting questions, the Contractor shall reference the appropriate area of the RFP when applicable.

1.3 The offeror’s Technical and Price proposal must be submitted in separate documents.

NOTICE: The offeror’s written Technical proposal, and all documents associated with the written Technical proposal, must not include any Price information.

2. Technical Proposal Instructions

The Technical proposal shall consist of the following major sections and no more than 40 pages long: a. Overall Technical Approach and Management Plan; b. Qualifications and Experience of Professional Staff; c. Past Performance.

a. Overall Technical Approach and Management Plan (proposed methodology, demonstrated understanding of the scope of work and the requirements):

The offeror shall provide a discussion of the technical approach and Management Plan to provide a solution to meet the requirements as described in the Performance Work Statement. In addition, include the milestones and a schedule depicting all activities. Activities shall correspond with the Performance Work Statement, with a cross-reference to paragraph and/or subparagraph numbers.

The Offeror shall develop and submit for approval a detailed Quality Assurance program outline which clearly details the corporate and project steps taken to ensure that all contract requirements are met

b. Qualifications and Experience of Professional Staff:

The offeror shall submit certification documentation and discuss how the proposed project staff personnel meet the qualifications of section 5 of the SOW. As part of the proposal, the offeror shall submit:

Document Number: SSBR202500001 Page 43 of 45

1. For subcontractor personnel/consultants, letters of commitment regarding the intent to be available if the offeror receives the award.

c. Past Performance:

The offeror's past performance will be evaluated. The USCP will focus on information that demonstrates quality of performance relative to the complexity of the procurement under consideration. Please submit no more than three (3) Past Performance references for similar efforts as described in the SOW under existing and prior Contracts for similar products and services over the last three years. For each Contract or Task Order provided as a reference, the offeror shall send the Past Performance Questionnaire (Attachment 2) to current clients for whom the firm has provided the same or similar services. Those clients providing past performance references shall submit an electronic version of the COMPLETED-FILLED OUT forms electronically to timothy.stinson@uscp.gov no later than 2:00 p.m., Eastern Time on December 20, 2024. Offerors shall include a list of clients who received the Past Performance Questionnaire, including the point-of-contact name, phone number, and email address. The past performance references must be for work performed in the capacity of a prime Contractor. The USCP reserves the right to consider any past performance information at its disposal, including but not limited to CPARS data and USCP's past experience with contractors and subcontractors, and any other Government source.

Offerors shall provide the Contracts – regardless of dollar value and subject matter – that were terminated for default or convenience by the Government within the past three (3) years. The offeror shall provide a brief explanation of the circumstances in each case.

If the Technical portion of the proposal exceeds the maximum page limitation, only the first 40 pages will be evaluated and the rest discarded. It should be noted that the Price Proposal and the Past Performance Questionnaires submitted by a Contractor’s clients are not included in the maximum page limitation.

3. Price Proposal Instructions

The offeror shall submit pricing for each CLIN using the attached Pricing Sheet. ODC CLINs should be left $0 or TBD.

Section M

Basis for Award Evaluation Factors for Award

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

1. Contract Award

The USCP intends to award a Fixed-Price IDIQ Contract. The award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal provides the best overall value for the requirements described in this solicitation and is most advantageous to the USCP. The offeror must conform to the terms and conditions of this solicitation. The USCP anticipates awarding a Contract on the basis of the written proposal, as identified in Section L. Therefore, the Technical and Price proposal shall be complete, free of deficiencies and include the offeror’s best terms from a Technical and Price standpoint.

Award will be based on Best Value. Price shall be a secondary factor. The USCP reserves the right to award without discussions.

2. Evaluation and Award Process

a. The evaluation process designed for this solicitation consists of the following:

(a) Evaluation of Technical Approach, Management Plan

(b) Qualifications and Technical Experience to include a detailed Quality Assurance program outline which clearly details the corporate and project steps taken to ensure that all contract requirements are met, and Past Performance.

(c) Evaluation of Past Performance based on all available past performance information.

b.

Evaluation of Price Proposals – The USCP will evaluate the offeror’s proposed Price. USCP will evaluate pricing by determining a Total Price, as a sum over 5 years of all maintenance and repair CLINS @ 12 months per year, and 60 hours per year for each hourly rate CLIN. The evaluation of the offeror’s Price proposal will be made independently of the Technical evaluation. The Price portion of technically unacceptable proposals will not be evaluated.

The USCP reserves the right to award with or without discussions.

Document Number: SSBR202500001 Page 44 of 45

c. The Technical evaluation factors when combined are significantly more important than Price. Price will not be afforded any specific adjectival rating. The USCP select an awardee after conducting a best value determination.

3. Evaluation Factors/Order of Ranking

The USCP will evaluate the offeror’s proposal in accordance with the evaluation criteria listed below in descending order of importance:

1. (a) Overall Technical Approach and Management Plan and Quality Assurance Plan (proposed methodology; demonstrated understanding of the performance work statement and the requirements); (b) Qualifications and Experience of Staff; a detailed Quality Assurance program outline which clearly details the corporate and project steps taken to ensure that all contract requirements are met.

2. (c) Past Performance.

3. Price.

Each technical evaluation factor will receive an adjectival rating as described in the table listed below:

Adjectival Rating Definition

Outstanding Very comprehensive, in-depth, clear response that greatly exceeds the minimum performance or capability requirements in a way beneficial to the Government. There are multiple strengths or significant strengths. There are no weaknesses. The Offeror’s understanding of the project and soundness of approach are such that virtually no doubt exists that the Offeror will successfully perform the proposed effort and that consistently high quality performance can be expected.

Excellent Extensive, detailed response to all requirements that Exceeds the minimum performance or capability requirements in a way beneficial to the Government. There are no significant weaknesses and a minimal number of weaknesses relative to strengths.. The Offeror’s understanding of the project and soundness of approach are such that there is great deal of certainty, that the Offeror will successfully perform the proposed effort and that high quality performance is likely but not assured due to weaknesses.

Document Number: SSBR202500001 Page 45 of 45

Acceptable The offeror has demonstrated an approach that meets the minimum performance or capability requirements. There may be a combination of weaknesses and strengths, and minor but correctable weaknesses. The Offeror’s understanding of the project and soundness of approach are such that there is an average risk that this offeror would fail to meet the quantity, quality, and schedule requirements of the solicitation.

Marginal The offeror has demonstrated an approach that does not meet all of the stated performance or capability requirements. There are significant weaknesses. Substantial doubt exists that the Offeror will successfully perform the proposed effort.

Unacceptable The offeror has demonstrated an approach that fails to meet the performance or capability requirements. There are unacceptable weaknesses or deficiencies. Extreme doubt exists that the Offeror will successfully perform the proposed effort. The Offeror’s understanding of the project and soundness of approach is such that a major revision to the proposal would be necessary.

A confidence rating of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Limited Confidence, No Confidence, Unknown/Neutral Confidence (each defined below) will be assigned for Past Performance. Offerors that have no relevant performance record will be given a neutral/unknown risk rating for this factor:

Adjectival Rating Description Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

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