Section M_TIPSS-4 ITS.doc

SOLICITATION NUMBER TIRNO-09-R-00012

PART IV - REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

TABLE OF CONTENTS

M.1

SOURCE SELECTION PROCESS………………………………………………M - 2

M.2

USE OF CONTRACTOR SUPPORT……………..…………………………......M - 2

M.3

BASIS FOR AWARD……...………………………………………………………M - 2

M.4

EVALUATION CRITERIA………………………………………………………M - 3

M.5

COMPETITVE RANGE DETERMINATION ………………………..……...... M -12

M.6 RESPONSIBILITY DETERMINATION and PRE-AWARD SURVEY OF

PROSPECTIVE CONTRACTORS …………………………………..………..... M-12

M.1

SOURCE SELECTION PROCESS

This procurement will be conducted using Federal Acquisition Regulation Part 15, Contracting by Negotiation.

In accordance with FAR 52.252-1-Solicitation Provisions Incorporated by Reference (FEB 1998), the following provisions are incorporated by reference:

FAR 52.217-5 Evaluation of Options (JUL 1990)

M.2

USE OF CONTRACTOR SUPPORT

The Government intends to use contractor in an administrative support capacity during the proposal evaluation process. A non-disclosure agreement will be executed with each contractor employee involved in the administrative support capacity. If an offeror has any objection to a contractor assisting the Government during the evaluation process, it must notify Tania B. Davis, Contracting Officer of the objection as well as the reasoning behind the objection via email (Tania.B.Davis@irs.gov) no later than the date the solicitation closes.

M.3

BASIS FOR AWARD

(a) The evaluation will be conducted on the basis of best value to the Government. Best value means an acquisition process that results in the most advantageous acquisition decision for the Government performed through an integrated assessment and trade-off between technical factors and cost/price. Technical factors include all factors other than the cost/price factor. Although technical factors combined are significantly more important than cost/price, the Government will not automatically award to an offeror that submits a proposal receiving the highest technical rating. In determining the best overall value, the Government has the discretion to make an award to an offeror whose proposal cost/price is lower than that of an offeror whose proposal receives the highest technical rating. Although cost/price is of less importance than technical factors combined, the closer proposal technical ratings are to one another, the more important cost/price consideration becomes in determining the best value to the Government.

The Government intends to make multiple awards resulting from this solicitation to offerors whose proposals have been determined to be the best value to the Government.

(b) Each offeror’s proposal will be rated in accordance with its content. The Government will not assume adequacy of performance in areas not specified in an offeror’s written proposal. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and make award based on negotiations with offerors in the competitive range. Any offeror receiving a rating of unacceptable or fail at the factor or sub-factor level will result in an overall rating of unacceptable for the offeror’s proposal. Any offeror’s proposal rated as unacceptable overall will not be eligible for award.

(c) Proposals that are unrealistic in terms of either a technical or cost/price nature may be reflective of an inherent risk, lack of competence, or indicative of failure to comprehend the complexity and risks associated with the solicitation requirements, and may result in a determination of unacceptability.

M.4 EVALUATION CRITERIA

Factor 1 – Past Experience Factor 2 – Past Performance

Sub-factor 1 – Development of a Major IT System

Sub-factor 2 – Operations & Maintenance of a Major IT System

Sub-factor 3 – IT Security

Sub-factor 4 – eSRS Factor 3 – Management Approach

Sub-factor 1 – Organizational Structure

Sub-factor 2 – Key Personnel Factor 4 – Earned Value Management System Factor 5 – Treasury Mentor-Protégé Program

Factor 6 – Cost/Price Offerors will be evaluated against five technical factors. Each sub-factor will be rated in descending order of importance. Factors 1 and 2 are of equal importance and the most important of the five factors. Factors 3 and 4 are of equal importance and when combined are more important than Factor 5. These five technical factors combined will make up the proposal’s overall technical rating. Please note, Factor 6 is of less importance than the technical factors combined; however, the closer the proposal technical ratings are to one another, the more important cost/price consideration becomes in determining the best value to the Government.

MINIMUM CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS:

(a) The Government will first determine the acceptability of each offer. An offer is acceptable when it manifests the offeror’s assent, without exception, to the material terms and conditions of the solicitation. If an offeror is not in compliance with the material requirements of Section L, omits material information required by the Request for Proposal, or imposes conditions, the Government will consider its offer to be unacceptable. AN OFFER MUST BE ACCEPTABLE IN ORDER TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR AWARD. THE GOVERNMENT WILL NOT AWARD A CONTRACT ON THE BASIS OF AN UNACCEPTABLE OFFER.

(b) The Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI)-SW or CMMI-DEV Level 2 is a contract requirement and will be evaluated as either Pass or Fail. Offerors shall submit their CMMI-SW or CMMI-DEV Level 2 validation in accordance with Section L.11.4 by the PROPOSAL DUE DATE. Offerors submitting proposals without the CMMI-SW or CMMI-DEV Level 2 validation will be rejected as unacceptable and will receive no further consideration for award. Offerors that do not pass the CMMI Level 2 validation will be considered non-responsive, not subject to further proposal evaluation, and not eligible for award. The Government reserves the right to conduct clarifications regarding an offeror’s CMMI documentation prior to determining if they meet the contract requirement. Offerors shall submit their CMMI-SW or CMMI-DEV Level 2 validation in accordance with Section L.11.4.

(c) All large business offerors are required to submit a subcontracting plan that meets all of the small business subcontracting goals, including the 25% overall goal as part of its proposals. Large business offerors that do not meet all of the goals identified in Attachment J.4 will be considered non-responsive, not subject to further proposal evaluation, and not eligible for award. The Government reserves the right to conduct clarifications regarding an offeror’s subcontracting plan prior to determining if they meet the contract requirement.

FACTOR 1 - PAST EXPERIENCE

Offerors must demonstrate their corporate experience with working on five projects of similar size, scope, and complexity as experienced with Government tax systems, financial systems, and IT support services for these and similar systems. Past experience shall be evaluated through the submission of five past experience profiles that demonstrate work performed within the past three years. Of these five profiles, at least: one profile shall demonstrate Development of a Major IT System, one shall demonstrate Operations & Maintenance of a Major IT System and one shall demonstrate IT Security experience. These profiles shall reflect the prime offeror’s corporate experience. The Government will not consider the experience of the offeror’s subcontracting partners, key personnel, or other information that is not part of the offeror’s corporate past/present performance. Each offeror’s proposal to this factor shall comply with the instructions in Section L.12.2.

Adjectival Rating for Factor 1 Excellent – Extensive corporate experience exist in performing contracts of similar size, scope, and complexity to that contemplated by the solicitation.

Good – Adequate or better corporate experience exist in performing contracts similar in size, scope, and complexity to that contemplated by the solicitation.

Marginal – Limited corporate experience exist in performing contracts of similar size, scope, and complexity to that contemplated by the solicitation.

Unacceptable – Inadequate corporate experience exist in performing contracts of similar size, scope, and complexity to that contemplated by the solicitation and/or the offeror did not submit at least one profile for each of the three areas identified above.

FACTOR 2 - PAST PERFORMANCE

Past Performance will be evaluated based on the four sub-factors listed below, which are listed in descending order of importance. Past Performance will be evaluated primarily through the information submitted on the completed past performance questionnaires and the eSRS submission for large businesses. The Government may also conduct independent checks of references not provided by an offeror.

The Government will not consider the past/present performance of the offeror’s subcontracting partners, key personnel, or other information that is not part of the offeror’s corporate past/present performance. The Government will also access the probability that any success achieved is repeatable. Each offeror’s proposal to this factor shall comply with the instructions in Section L.12.3.

Sub-factor 1: Development of a Major IT System The Government will evaluate the offeror’s recent and relevant corporate past/present performance for contracts similar in size, scope, and complexity to that contemplated by the solicitation in the area of Major IT System Development. Offerors will be evaluated based on their performance in the areas of Quality/Performance, Budget Control, and Schedule. Additionally, the Government will evaluate the offeror’s ability to respond to late breaking changes that arise during the development lifecycle, the offeror’s ability to incorporate the latest technology into their proposed solution, and their performance with modernization efforts.

Adjectival Ratings for Sub-factor 1 Excellent – Recent and highly relevant past/present performance record exists for contracts similar in size, scope, and complexity to that contemplated by the solicitation. No potential exists for disruption of schedule, increase in cost, or degradation in quality of performance based on a contractor’s past performance.

Good – Recent and highly relevant or relevant past/present performance record exists for contracts similar in size, scope, and complexity to that contemplated by the solicitation. Some potential exists for disruption of schedule, increase in cost, or degradation in quality of performance based on a contractor’s past performance.

Unacceptable – Recent and highly relevant or relevant past/present performance record may exist; however, significant potential exists for disruption of schedule, increase in cost, or degradation in quality of performance based on a contractor’s past performance.

Neither Favorable/Unfavorable – No record of recent and/or relevant past/present performance exists or relevant past/present performance history is not available.

Sub-factor 2: Operations & Maintenance of a Major IT System

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s recent and relevant corporate past/present performance for contracts similar in size, scope, and complexity to that contemplated by the solicitation in the area of Operations & Maintenance of a Major IT System. Offerors will be evaluated based on their performance in the areas of Quality/Performance, Budget Control, and Schedule. Additionally, the Government will evaluate the offeror’s performance related to legacy systems, the offeror’s ability to work with multiple stakeholders, and their performance maintaining system availability.

Adjectival Ratings for Sub-factor 2 Excellent – Recent and highly relevant past/present performance record exists for contracts similar in size, scope, and complexity to that contemplated by the solicitation. No potential exists for disruption of schedule, increase in cost, or degradation in quality of performance based on a contractor’s past performance.

Good – Recent and highly relevant or relevant past/present performance record exists for contracts similar in size, scope, and complexity to that contemplated by the solicitation. Some potential exists for disruption of schedule, increase in cost, or degradation in quality of performance based on a contractor’s past performance.

Unacceptable – Recent and highly relevant or relevant past/present performance record may exist; however, significant potential exists for disruption of schedule, increase in cost, or degradation in quality of performance based on a contractor’s past performance.

Neither Favorable/Unfavorable – No record of recent and/or relevant past/present performance exists or relevant past/present performance history is not available.

Sub-factor 3: IT Security

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s recent and relevant corporate past/present performance for contracts similar in size, scope, and complexity to that contemplated by the solicitation in the area of IT Security. Offerors will be evaluated based on their performance in the areas of Quality/Performance, Budget Control, and Schedule. Additionally, the Government will evaluate the offeror’s performance conforming to the security standards established by their customer, the offeror’s ability to provide a secure environment while meeting their customer’s IT needs, and their performance protecting large amounts of sensitive information similar to taxpayer information.

Adjectival Ratings for Sub-factor 3 Excellent – Recent and highly relevant past/present performance record exists for contracts similar in size, scope, and complexity to that contemplated by the solicitation. No potential exists for disruption of schedule, increase in cost, or degradation in quality of performance based on a contractor’s past performance.

Good – Recent and highly relevant or relevant past/present performance record exists for contracts similar in size, scope, and complexity to that contemplated by the solicitation. Some potential exists for disruption of schedule, increase in cost, or degradation in quality of performance based on a contractor’s past performance.

Unacceptable – Recent and highly relevant or relevant past/present performance record may exist; however, significant potential exists for disruption of schedule, increase in cost, or degradation in quality of performance based on a contractor’s past performance.

Neither Favorable/Unfavorable – No record of recent and/or relevant past/present performance exists or relevant past/present performance history is not available.

Sub-factor 4: eSRS Subcontractor Reporting

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s record for meeting small business Subcontracting Goals from the eSRS hardcopy forms submitted with the offeror’s proposal. This sub-factor is only applicable to large business offerors. Each offeror’s proposal to this Sub-factor shall comply with the instructions in Section L.13.2.

Adjectival Ratings for Sub-factor 4

Excellent – Offeror’s record demonstrates that it constantly met its small business subcontracting goals and exceeded most of those goals during the past three years.

Good – Offeror’s record demonstrates that it constantly met its small business subcontracting goals and exceeded some of those goals during the past three years.

Marginal – Offeror’s record demonstrates that it met some of its small business subcontracting goals, but made a good faith effort to meet all of those goals during the past three years.

Unacceptable – Offeror’s record demonstrates that it did not meet all of its small business subcontracting goals, and in at least one area, did not make a good faith effort to meet those goals during the past three years.

Neither Favorable/Unfavorable – No record of relevant past/present performance exists or relevant past/present performance history is not available.

Not Applicable – This factor is only applicable to large businesses; therefore, small business offerors will not be evaluated.

FACTOR 3 – MANAGEMENT APPROACH

Management Approach will be evaluated based on the two sub-factors listed below, which are listed in descending order of importance. The Government will evaluate offeror’s management approach to determine that it demonstrates an in-depth and clear understanding of the requirements contemplated by the solicitation as evidence by an awareness of the managerial effort, challenges, risk, and responsibilities, associated with contract performance. The Government will access the degree to which an offeror’s solution promotes economical and efficient contract performance, and the degree to which the offeror’s solution is achievable without disruption of schedule, degradation of performance, and/or increase in costs.

Sub-factor 1: Organizational Structure

The Government will evaluate each offeror’s organizational structure to determine if the company’s management and administrative organization meets the Government’s needs. Additionally, the Government will evaluate the offeror’s subcontract management plan to determine the offeror’s ability to meet solicitation requirements based on its subcontracting agreements. Each offeror’s proposal to this factor shall comply with the instructions in Section L.12.4.1.

Adjectival Ratings for Sub-factor 1 Excellent – The offeror demonstrates a clear understanding of the solicitation requirements. Reflects a highly effective organizational structure with efficiencies gained through proven quality methodologies.

Good – The offeror demonstrates a clear understanding of the solicitation requirements. Reflects an effective organizational structure with efficiencies gained through generally practiced quality methodologies.

Marginal – The offeror demonstrates a basic understanding of the solicitation requirements, reflects an effective organizational structure with no efficiencies gained through quality methodologies.

Unacceptable – The offeror does not demonstrate an understanding of the solicitation requirements. Reflects an ineffective organizational structure with no efficiencies gained through quality methodologies.

Sub-factor 2: Key Personnel

Each offeror shall propose key personnel at the corporate level that will be utilized for the TIPSS-4 ITS contract. Each offeror’s proposal to this factor shall comply with the instructions in Section L.12.4.2.

Adjectival Ratings for Sub-factor 2 Excellent – The offeror’s proposal demonstrates extensive experience by all key personnel in understanding the requirements contemplated by the solicitation. Personnel exhibit high-degree of managerial responsibilities that addresses challenges and risks, and promote economical and efficient solutions.

Good – The offeror’s proposal demonstrates above average or average experience by all key personnel in understanding the requirements contemplated by the solicitation. Personnel exhibit moderate degree of managerial responsibilities that address challenges and risks, and promote economical and efficient solutions.

Marginal – The offeror’s proposal demonstrates below average experience by one key person and average or above average experience in understanding the requirements contemplated by the solicitation by the remaining key personnel. Personnel exhibit minimal degree of managerial responsibilities that address challenges and risks, and promote economical and efficient solutions.

Unacceptable – The offeror’s proposal demonstrates below average experience by more than one key person in understanding the requirements contemplated by the solicitation. Personnel exhibit minimal degree of managerial responsibilities that address challenges and risks, and promote economical and efficient solutions.

FACTOR 4 - EARNED VALUE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (EVMS)

Documentation provided will be evaluated as either Pass or Fail. Each offeror’s proposal to this factor shall comply with the instructions in Section L.12.5. Offerors that fail this requirement will be considered ineligible for award.

Pass – Offeror provided compliance determination documentation for an ANSI/EIA Standard - 748 A compliant system, submission of an approved comprehensive plan, contractor self-validation that will be determined for adequacy by the Contracting Officer, or a comprehensive plan to be reviewed and determined for adequacy by the Contracting Officer.

Fail – The offeror did not submit documentation that it has an approved EVM system, or an approved EVM plan, nor did the offeror self-validate that its system can apply EVM in Full or Core compliance with ANSI/EIA Standards.

FACTOR 5 – TREASURY MENTOR-PROTÉGÉ PROGRAM

Each large business offeror proposing under the ITS is required to submit copies of its applications for Mentor – Protégé agreements with the Department of the Treasury. The IRS Small Business Specialist will review, evaluate, and rate each submission. Mentor – Protégé references may be checked for accuracy. Each offeror’s proposal to this factor shall comply with the instructions in Section L.13.4

Adjectival Ratings for Factor 5 Excellent – Offeror submitted more than two signed Mentor – Protégé applications with the Department of the Treasury, of which at least one Mentor – Protégé application is with a company with whom it has an existing relationship and at least one Mentor – Protégé application with a small business that is new to both the company and the IRS.

Good – Offeror submitted two signed Mentor – Protégé applications with the Department of the Treasury, of which one Mentor – Protégé application is with a company with whom it has an existing relationship and one Mentor – Protégé application with a small business that is new to both the company and the IRS.

Marginal – Offeror has submitted one signed Mentor – Protégé application with the Department of the Treasury, that is either a Mentor – Protégé application with a company with whom it has an existing relationship or a Mentor – Protégé application with a small business that is new to both the company and the IRS.

Unacceptable - Offeror did not submit a Mentor – Protégé application to the Department of the Treasury.

Not Applicable – This factor is only applicable to large businesses; therefore, small business offerors will not be evaluated.

FACTOR 6 – COST/PRICE

The Government will evaluate proposed cost/price to determine if the overall costs/prices are realistic for the work to be performed, reflect a clear understanding of the requirements, and are consistent with the offeror’s technical proposal. The Government may adjust costs and fee either upward or downward as a result of the cost realism analysis; however, costs that are unrealistic for the effort contemplated by this solicitation may indicate a lack of understanding of the solicitation requirement and may also result in a lower technical evaluation. Proposals, which do not demonstrate cost realism, will also be considered in a risk assessment and evaluated in accordance with that assessment.

AWARD OF FULL QUANTITY

Offerors must submit prices for all line items and all quantities, including option quantities to be eligible for award.

M.5 COMPETITIVE RANGE DETERMINATION

In accordance with FAR 15.306 (c), the Government reserves the right to limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

M.6 RESPONSIBILITY DETERMINATION and PRE-AWARD SURVEY OF

PROSPECTIVE CONTRACTORS

Government personnel may conduct a complete or partial Pre-Award Survey of prospective contractors and their subcontractors. The Government will consider the findings of the Pre-award Survey, in part, in making the responsibility determination. The evaluation of responsibility will be in accordance with FAR Part 9, offerors that are not deemed responsible will not be considered for award. The following factors may be investigated during the survey and any findings may be considered in the evaluation process:

a. Financial Capability;

b. Purchasing and Subcontracting;

c. Accounting System;

d. Quality Assurance Capability;

e. Labor Resource;

f. Performance Record;

g. Ability to meet required schedule; and

h. Ability to provide the required system(s) support.

(End of Section) M-1