Section_M_-_DRAFT_Posting.docx

ExPRESS RFP TIB-2016-RFP-0002 DRAFT Section M – Evaluation Factors For Award

Table of Contents

ExPRESS RFP TIB-2016-RFP-0002 DRAFT Section M

ExPRESS RFP TIB-2016-RFP-0002 DRAFT Section M i

M.1 PROPOSAL EVALUATION

The Offeror shall provide their best, complete proposal upon initial submission. The FRTIB reserves the right to hold discussions, if deemed necessary by the Contracting Officer. A Source Selection Evaluation Team will evaluate all proposals based on the proposals/documentation provided. The evaluations will be based on the evaluation criteria set forth below.

(End of Provision)

M.2 EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

(a) The evaluations will be based on 3 Factors:

(1) Factor 1: Mission Suitability, which is comprised of 4 Subfactors:

(i) Subfactor 1: Retirement Plan Services Delivery and Major Program Migrations

(ii) Subfactor 2: Phase-In Technical Approach

(iii) Subfactor 3: Steady State and Transformational Technical Approach

(iv) Subfactor 4: Security and Management Approach

(2) Factor 2: Past Performance

(3) Factor 3: Cost/Price

(b) Relative Importance of the 3 Factors:

(1) Mission Suitability is the most important Factor. Past Performance and Cost/Price Factors are substantially equal and when combined, are less important than Mission Suitability. Under Mission Suitability, Subfactor 4 is more important than Subfactor 3, which is more important than Subfactor 2, which is more important than Subfactor 1, as illustrated by the point totals assigned to each subfactor below.

(2) Mission Suitability is adjectivally and numerically scored. Adjectives are based on the following definition of “findings” chart:

Definition of “Findings”

Adjectival Rating Scale The following scale will be utilized to evaluate all Mission Suitability Subfactors:

M.3 EVALUATION OF MISSION SUITABILITY

(a) The Mission Suitability Factor consists of the following Subfactors:

(1) Subfactor 1: Retirement Plan Services Delivery and Major Program Migrations (100 points) This Subfactor will be evaluated for the description of the Offeror’s in-depth experience, knowledge and understanding of defined contribution PLAN rules and service delivery as it applies to the life cycle of the participant’s relationship with the TSP. The FRTIB will review for accuracy, effectiveness, efficiency, realism, comprehensiveness and providing a high quality participant experience. This shall include the Offeror’s approach to defined contribution benefits and claims from enrollment through final payout.

i. Subfactor 1 will be reviewed IAW the Evaluation Scoring System set forth in Section M paragraph M.2(b)(2).

ii. Those proposals receiving a Good, Very Good or Excellent adjective rating for Subfactor 1 will “Pass” and the remainder of their proposals will be evaluated.

iii. Those proposals receiving a Fair or Poor adjective rating for Subfactor 1 will “Fail” and the Offeror’s remaining proposal volumes will remain unopened and will not be evaluated. Offeror(s) will be notified upon approval of the Competitive Range Determination, if required, or at contract award.

(2) Subfactor 2: Phase-In Technical Approach (150 points) The FRTIB will evaluate the Offeror’s rationale for the proposed phase-in period for accuracy, assurability, verifiability, precision, timeliness, thoroughness, effectiveness, efficiency, expediency, and realism to determine the Offeror’s knowledge and understanding of the PWS Steady State requirements and surge readiness in accordance with the acceptance criteria set forth in Section E.

(3) Subfactor 3: Steady State and Transformational Technical Approach (275 points) The FRTIB will evaluate the Offeror’s overall approach to integrating, operating, transforming, managing and continuously improving the TSP participant experience and services for accuracy, stability, assurability, expediency, efficiency, effectiveness, reasonableness, realism, and comprehensiveness to determine the Offeror’s understanding of the requirements

(4) Subfactor 4 – Security and Management Approach (475 points) The FRTIB will evaluate the Offeror’s overall approach for implementing security and program management for appropriateness, timeliness, comprehensiveness, reasonableness, realism, efficiency, effectiveness, verifiability, and feasibility to determine the Offeror’s understanding of the requirements.

(i) Organizational Structure and Chart. In addition to the adjectives set forth in the paragraph above, the FRTIB will evaluate the appropriateness of the Offeror‘s proposed organization chart and proposed interactions with FRTIB personnel including the clarity and effectiveness of the Governance Structure between the Offeror and the FRTIB. FRTIB will evaluate the appropriateness of the Offeror‘s proposed organization chart identifying where this contract fits within the corporate structure. FRTIB will evaluate the assignment of key personnel as well as managerial positions within the organizational chart for appropriateness and effectiveness.

(ii) Key Personnel.

(A) In addition to the evaluation criteria set forth in the Management Factor above, FRTIB will evaluate the Offeror’s Key Personnel Approach for overall demonstrated understanding, effectiveness, feasibility, efficiency, and consistency with the overall management approach and rationale.

(B) The FRTIB will also evaluate the Key Personnel resume information for relevancy, career progression, breadth of experience, and that the individual proposed as Program Executive and his/her backup meet the qualifications established in H.22 as well as the offeror’s qualifications for other key personnel.

(iii) Position Qualifications. In addition to the evaluation criteria set forth in the Management Factor above, FRTIB will evaluate the Offeror’s written position qualifications for competency and completeness in meeting the requirements of the PWS, and the Offeror’s understanding of the contract requirements.

(iv) Staffing Approach. In addition to the evaluation criteria set forth in the Management Factor above, FRTIB will evaluate:

(A) The effectiveness and adequacy of the Offeror‘s proposed staffing approach and plan, anticipated incumbent capture (if any), corporate reachback, and how it will satisfy the contract requirements

(B) The Offeror‘s ability to acquire and retain qualified and experienced personnel.

(C) The adequacy of the Offeror‘s comprehensive hiring plan including personnel to be transferred from within the Offeror‘s own organization, and those from other sources.

(D) The effectiveness of any consolidations, improvements, and any proposed staffing changes.

(E) The effectiveness and adequacy of any proposed strategy to overcome shortfalls in the primary staffing strategy and the approach to providing back-up in the event of absences or vacancies.

(F) The effectiveness and adequacy of the Offeror‘s approach to staffing surge requirements.

(G) The proposed staffing changes for effectiveness as a result of consolidations and improvements.

(v) Significant Subcontractors

(A) If subcontractors are proposed, in addition to the evaluation criteria set forth in the Management Factor above, FRTIB will evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of the Offeror‘s proposed interfaces to the Offeror’s organizational structure including presenting a seamless and integrated organizational structure to the FRTIB: 1) a separate organization chart for each subcontractor, 2) the basis for the selection of each subcontractor, 3) the nature and extent of the work to be performed by each subcontractor, 4) the benefits of these arrangements to FRTIB, and 5) the methods of management and reporting to the FRTIB of subcontractors' financial and technical plans and performance. FRTIB will evaluate the plans for completing contemplated subcontracting arrangements for feasibility and timeliness.

(B) FRTIB will evaluate the comprehensiveness of the Offeror‘s rationale and proposed procedures for determining applicability of subcontracting, if any, and the effectiveness and efficiency of proposed procedures for managing subcontracts. This evaluation will consider the Offeror's planned usage, if any, of subcontracting agreements and the detail of the functional areas and functional split of responsibilities including the potential percentages of work to be performed. FRTIB will evaluate the effectiveness of the Offeror‘s proposed approach for addressing any problems that arise as a result of the proposed organization structure or poor and/or non-performance of subcontracted portions of the contract.

(vi) Total Compensation Plan. In addition to the evaluation criteria set forth in the Management Factor above, FRTIB will evaluate the proposed Plan to ensure that it reflects a sound management approach and understanding of the contract requirements. This evaluation will include an assessment of the Offeror’s ability to provide uninterrupted high-quality work. The professional compensation proposed will be considered in terms of its impact upon recruiting and retention, realism, and consistency with the total plan for compensation.

(vii) Draft Contract Management Plan

(A) In addition to the evaluation criteria set forth in the Management Factor above, FRTIB will evaluate the Offeror‘s approach to manage teams of technically and geographically diverse personnel with multiple, simultaneous efforts that may have competing requirements for technical expertise, timelines and achievement of delivery schedules for effectiveness and efficiency. FRTIB will also evaluate Offeror’s approach to managing subcontracts, risk, and quality assurance for effectiveness and thoroughness. FRTIB will evaluate the efficacy and benefits of the methods for obtaining and implementing changes due to user feedback to achieve improved performance. Additionally, the information provided will be evaluated for realism, thoroughness, efficiency, and effectiveness

(B) FRTIB will evaluate the information provided (including risk management, quality management, and continuity of operations) as related to the Offeror’s ability to contend with the pace of change to the service environment and technology while maintaining its organizational structure and staffing, including subcontractors. This information will be evaluated for efficiency, effectiveness, and realism.

(C) FRTIB will evaluate the proposed approach for effectiveness and efficiency for the use of proposed industry process models, best practices, and performance standards for lifecycle management and governance of Service Center capabilities.

(viii) Draft Information Security Plan. In addition to the evaluation criteria set forth in the Management Factor above, FRTIB will evaluate the Offeror’s draft information security plan for effectiveness, integration throughout the program, completeness, compliance with Federal laws and FRTIB EISRM and Baseline Security Requirements (BLSR) and the Offeror’s understanding of the requirements.

(ix) Joint Venture. In addition to the evaluation criteria set forth in the Management Factor above, FRTIB will evaluate the Offeror’s Joint Venture for validity, adequacy, completeness, and effectiveness of organizational control.

(x) Draft Associate Contractor Agreements Approach. In addition to the evaluation criteria set forth in the Management Factor above, FRTIB will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to negotiating and establishing Associate Contractor Agreements for achieving seamless, efficient, and transparent service delivery with third-party FRTIB Service Centers.

(xi) Errors and Omissions Insurance Policy. Errors and Omission Insurance policies, including all endorsements, riders, or other expressions of or modifications of coverage, shall be evaluated for validity, adequacy, and appropriateness.

(xii) Draft Organizational Conflict of Interest Plan. FRTIB will evaluate the Offeror’s Organization Draft Conflict of Interest Plan for thoroughness, enforceability, and clarity of organization barriers that will reduce the likelihood of occurrences of conflicts of interest.

M.4 EVALUATION OF PAST PERFORMANCE

Past Performance will be evaluated on the basis of relevant past performance for contracts performed (completed or ongoing) during the last three 3 years, (January 1, 2014 – Dec 31, 2016).

(a) Prime Offeror

(1) Past Performance Volume. Contracts shall be relevant to the dollar value of this contract, work requirements and scope of the PWS.

(2) Prime Offeror Past Performance Information, Matrix, and Questionnaire:

(i) Offerors shall submit 3 – 5 references to demonstrate relevant input for the evaluation of this factor, using the Questionnaire in Attachment L.1. The proposal shall provide the issuing FRTIB/Vendor, contract number, contract title, contact name, current phone number and identify the contactor’s role in the subject contract.

(ii) These references must be consistent with the contracts provided in response to Section L.20.

(b) Subcontractor(s)

(1) Significant Subcontractor Past Performance Volume. Contracts shall be relevant to the work requirements and scope of the PWS.

(2) Significant Subcontractor Past Performance Questionnaire:

(i) Offerors shall submit 3 – 5 references to demonstrate relevant input for the evaluation of this factor, using the Questionnaire in Attachment L.1. The proposal shall provide the issuing Agency/Vendor, contract number, contract title, contact name, current phone number and identify the contactor’s role in the subject contract.

(ii) These references must be consistent with the contracts provided in response to Section L.20.

(c) FRTIB may gather additional information from any other sources available to theFRTIB(e.g., Government-controlled Contractor performance databases and references including contractual, technical, and end-user representatives) for additional evaluation of this factor.

(d) The Past Performance Questionnaire, Section L.1 shall be used to collect reference information. The Questionnaire describes the type of information that will be collected from references.

(e) FRTIB will evaluate past performance in accordance with the following table:

Past Performance Evaluation

**(One or more significant strengths exist. Strengths outbalance any weakness.)

M.5 EVALUATION OF COST AND PRICE

Cost and Price will be evaluated, but not numerically scored. The cost and price proposal will be evaluated by adding the total proposed figures for all years of the proposal including Phase-In under CLIN 0001 and Transformation under CLIN 0003. The total effort is comprised of Phase-In and eight years of performance.

In the event that an Offeror fails to provide adequate rationale explaining the cost build-up, specific indirect rates applications or any associated information in the pricing approach to support the cost and price proposal, FRTIB reserves the right to reject an Offeror’s proposal.

(a) Proposed Price for Phase-In (CLIN 0001) will be evaluated independently at the CLIN level and will be included as a part of the Most Probable Cost evaluation.

(b) Evaluation of Transformation (CLIN 0003) will be conducted on proposed Ceiling labor rates, labor categories and FTE/Hours based on the technical approach to arrive at FRTIB estimated Not-to-Exceed (NTE) amount. The NTE amount will be included as a part of the Most Probable Cost evaluation.

(c) The Cost and Price factor evaluation will be conducted on the basis of proposed price, cost and fixed-fee. FRTIB will employ techniques and procedures described in FAR 15.404-1 as the primary means of assessing reasonableness and realism. Completeness will be evaluated in order to determine responsiveness of the offer. Completeness, reasonableness and realism are defined as follows:

(1) Completeness: Completeness is determined by assessing the responsiveness of the Cost & Price proposal. For submitted information to be complete, Offerors must provide sufficient Cost & Price narrative, complete Section B CLINs for the base and all option periods, complete all Section L Attachments, and provide a total aggregate cost amount for the entire effort. Proposals that contain gross inaccuracies will be considered as incomplete

(2) Reasonableness: FRTIB will evaluate the reasonableness of the proposed price, cost and fixed-fee based on the definition in FAR 31.201-3. Reasonableness, if in its nature and amount, does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of a competitive business.

(3) Realism: To evaluate realism, FRTIB will perform analysis through reviewing and evaluating cost elements in all CLINs excluding FRTIB prescribed amounts that are stated in the Offeror's Cost & Price Volume. Realism analysis will be conducted to determine whether proposed price, cost and cost elements are (1) realistic to meet the requirements of this solicitation, and (2) accurately reflects the technical approach described in Offeror’s Technical Proposal. Price, cost or cost realism analysis techniques described in FAR 15.404-1 may be employed independently or in combination.

(d) The Total Compensation Plan, as requested in L.19 (a) will be a part of the realism analysis. Since ExPRESS is a new requirement, evaluation of the plan will focus on two main areas. (a) Determine whether the compensation levels proposed reflect a clear understanding of work to be performed, and if they indicate the capability of the proposed compensation structure to obtain and keep suitably qualified personnel to meet mission objectives. (b) Based on the proposed plan; determine the quality and stability of the work force to be employed on this contract. Professional compensation that is unrealistically low or not in reasonable relationship to the various job categories may impair the Contractor’s ability to attract and retain competent professional service employees, and may be viewed as evidence of failure to comprehend the complexity of the contract requirements.

(e) Realism analysis may also include a review of unbalanced pricing if any part of the offer contains significantly over or understated pricing information, including the Total Compensation Plan.

(1) Unbalanced pricing may increase performance or cost risks to FRTIB. Cost risk is defined as the ability to achieve cost objectives, and often associated with inaccurate or unrealistic pricing approaches. Performance risk is described as the Contractor’s ability in fulfilling the contract requirements at the cost/price proposed. A proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

(2) The result of the realism analysis will be a determination of the Most Probable Cost to fulfill the requirement by the Offeror. The Most Probable Cost may require adjustments to the Offeror's proposed cost to reflect any additions or reductions in specific cost elements to realistic levels based on the results of the realism analysis. The Most Probable Cost may differ from the proposed Cost. The Most Probable Cost determination will include the cost of options as described in FAR 52.217-5, Evaluation of Options. The evaluation is for award purposes only and does not obligate the FRTIB to exercise the option(s).

M.6 PRE-AWARD SURVEY

(a) FRTIB reserves the right to conduct a pre-award survey and audit to determine the capabilities of the Offeror to perform within the operational, technological, schedule, cost and price conditions set forth in this RFP. Award will not be made to any Offeror who does not meet the standards of responsibility described in FAR 9.104. FRTIB also reserves the right to conduct pre-award surveys on any major subcontractor.

(b) Inherent to the evaluation will be an assessment of risk – that is, the evaluator’s determination of the degree to which an Offeror would be successful i.e., the ability, capability, and probability that if awarded the contract, the Offeror can and will meet the requirements of the PWS, consistent with their technical proposal, with a quality workforce, on schedule, and within cost. Risk is an implicit part of cost proposal evaluation and an adjectival rating reflecting the likelihood of occurrence and the consequence or severity of the impact on contract performance will be determined:

(1) High: Great potential exists for serious work performance problems including, but not limited to, work schedule disruptions or degradation of performance and increases in contract cost, even with special contract management emphasis and close monitoring.

(2) Medium: Some potential exists for work performance problems including, but not limited to, work schedule disruptions or degradation of performance and a commensurate increase in contract costs incurred. However, with close monitoring by FRTIB, the Contractor will probably be able to overcome the difficulties.

(3) Low: Minimal or no potential exists for work performance problems, including, but not limited to, work schedule disruptions, quality problems, and a limited or no increase in contract costs incurred by the Agency. Any difficulties that may exist will be overcome with normal contract monitoring.

(c) The proposed and probable costs for all CLINs (including Phase-In) will be presented to the Source Selection Authority.

M.7 SELECTION

Selection will be made in accordance with the relative importance of factors set forth in Paragraph M.2 in order to determine the offeror who represents the best value to the Agency.

(End of Provision)

(End of Section M) image1.jpeg