Section M_TIPSS-4 SB A0001.doc

SOLICITATION NUMBER TIRNO-09-R-00013

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 - 4

M.5

COMPETITVE RANGE DETERMINATION ………………………….....….M - 9

M.6

RESPONSIBILITY DETERMINATION AND PRE-AWARD

SURVEY OF PROSPECTIVE CONTRACTORS ……………………………M - 9

M.1

SOURCE SELECTION PROCESS

This procurement is a Total Set-Aside for Small Business and 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 a 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 IRS intends to award at least one contract to Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Businesses (SDVOSBs) and one contract to HUBZone businesses. Therefore, IRS will be conducting SEPARATE competitions as follows:

MBOSS Competition for HUBZones

MBOSS Competition for SDVOSBs

MBOSS Competition for all Small Businesses

CyberSecurity Competition for HUBZones

CyberSecurity Competition for SDVOSBs

CyberSecurity Competition for all Small Businesses Awards will be made to the best value offerors in each of the individual competitions in accordance with the evaluation criteria in M.4. Comparisons will not be made across competitions. IRS reserves the right to determine how many awards will be made in each of the six categories.

Offerors wishing to propose under one or both task areas must indicate clearly to the Government which of the three competitions it wishes to be evaluated against. The Government will not assume which competition the offeror intends to propose. Offerors that do not indicate which competition it is proposing, as specified in Section L, will be evaluated under the all Small Businesses competition regardless if it is a SDVOSB or HUBZone. Offerors are not permitted to bid under more than one competition within MBOSS or CyberSecurity (i.e. if an SDVOSB decides to propose under the MBOSS task area, it must decide for which competition it wishes to propose, either: 1) all small business competition; 2) SDVOSB competition; or 3) HUBZone competition (if SDVOSB qualifies)). The competition for which the business proposes will be the only competition it will be evaluated against.

The Government reserves the right to limit the competitive range for all competitions in the interest of efficiency.

(b) Each evaluation will be conducted on the basis of the 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. Although cost/price is of less importance than technical factors combined, the closer the technical ratings of the various proposals 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.

(c) The Government intends to evaluate proposals and make award via negotiation with offerors. 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. 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 as it does not meet all of the minimum requirements of the solicitation..

(d) Proposals that are unrealistic in terms of either a technical or cost/price nature may be reflective as 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

Factor 3 – Management Approach

Sub-factor 1 – Organizational Structure

Sub-factor 2 – Key Personnel Factor 4 – Earned Value Management System

Factor 5 – Cost/Price Offerors will be evaluated against five factors. Factors 1 and 2 are of equal importance and when combined are more important than Factors 3 and 4 combined. Factors 3 and 4 are of equal importance. The two sub-factors under Factor 3 are of descending importance. These four technical factors combined will make up the proposal’s overall technical rating. Please note, Factor 5 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 REQUIREMENT

(a) The Government will first determine the acceptability of each offer on a pass or fail basis. 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 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 under the Cybersecurity task area only and will also be evaluated as either pass or fail. Offerors may either submit their CMMI-SW or CMMI-DEV Level 2 validation in accordance with Section L.10.4 by the proposal due date or defer certification until after award. However, offerors who elect to defer certification until after award will not be allowed to bid on any security software development task orders issued under the Cybersecurity task area until the prime contractor shows it has become CMMI-DEV Level 2, version 1.2 certified

FACTOR 1 - PAST EXPERIENCE

Offerors must demonstrate their corporate experience with working on three projects of similar size, scope, and complexity for each principal task area proposed. Past experience shall be evaluated through the submission of past experience profiles for work performed within the past three years. 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.

Of the three profiles required for offeror’s electing to propose under the MBOSS task area at least one profile shall demonstrate Program/Project Management experience working on large IT systems similar to Government tax systems and/or financial systems.

Of the three profiles required for offeror’s electing to propose under the Cybersecurity task area at least one profile shall demonstrate Security Certification and Accreditation experience and at least one profile shall demonstrate Disaster Recovery experience working on large IT systems similar to Government tax systems and/or financial systems.

Each offeror’s proposal to this factor shall comply with the instructions in Section L.11.2.

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 area identified above.

FACTOR 2 - PAST PERFORMANCE

Past Performance will be evaluated primarily through the information submitted on the completed past performance questionnaires. 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.

MBOSS Principal Task Area

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. 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 provide program/project management support, perform analysis/studies, and implement process improvements. (Note: The MBOSS principal task area does not have a EVMS requirement).

Cybersecurity Principal Task Area

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. 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 perform Security Certification and Accreditation and Disaster Recovery.

Adjectival Rating for 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.

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.11.4.1.

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 SB contract. Each offeror’s proposal to this factor shall comply with the instructions in Section L.11.4.2.

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

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.11.5. The MBOSS area is exempt from FACTOR 4. Offerors proposing for the Cybersecurity area 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 comprehensive plan, nor did the offeror self-validate that its system can apply EVM in Full or Core compliance with ANSI/EIA Standards, nor did the offeror submit a comprehensive plan to be reviewed by the Contracting Officer to determine adequacy.

FACTOR 5 – 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 fees 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