Revised Section M_date Oct2011.pdf

REFM LOGISTICS SERVICES TIRNO-11-R-00009

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1 BASIS FOR AWARD

This procurement is being conducted using formal source selection procedures in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15, Negotiations.

(a) The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions. Therefore, each initial offer should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if later determined by the Contracting Officer to be necessary.

(b) During the source selection process, the Technical Evaluation Committee will review and evaluate each offeror’s technical proposal using an adjectival rating system in accordance with the criteria described below. It is important that the offeror consider carefully the criteria and their relative importance in developing its proposal.

(c) The Present and Past Performance factor will be evaluated using an adjectival rating system by the Technical Evaluation Committee that will conduct its evaluation in accordance with the criteria described below. Those offerors that do not have past performance information or where past performance information is not available will not be rated favorably or unfavorably but will receive a rating of Neutral. An overall finding of unsatisfactory for present and past performance shall result in the entire proposal being deemed unsatisfactory.

M.2 AWARD--SINGLE AWARD FOR ALL ITEMS

Due to the interrelationship of supplies and/or services to be provided hereunder, it is the intent of the Government to make a single award to the Offeror whose proposal provides the best value to the Government, price, and non-price factors considered.

Therefore, offerors proposing less than the entire effort specified herein shall be determined to be non-responsive and will not be considered for award.

M.3 TECHNICAL PROPOSAL EVALUATION

The technical proposal will be evaluated based on the criteria listed below. The evaluation factors listed below are listed in the relative order of importance from most important to least important. For those factors that contain sub-factors, the sub-factors are equally weighted.

M – 1 Revised Oct2011

The six technical factors when combined are more important than price. However, the closer the offeror’s technical ratings are to one another, the more important cost/price consideration becomes in determining the best value to the Government.

Factor 1 - Technical Approach

The offeror will be assessed on the clarity and completeness of its proposed approach and methodology, and the degree to which it demonstrates their knowledge of logistics management.

This shall include warehousing, materials handling, inventory management, inbound and outbound transportation management, fleet management, handling of sensitive tax documents, providing timely and accurate repair services, property/box movement requests, work order processing, management of third party vendors and the management of a geographically dispersed workforce.

Sub-Factor 1.1 – Automated Management and Inventory Information System (Basic Services and Cost Plus Fixed Fee) – the offeror must have an automated management and inventory information system at the time the proposal is submitted. The Government does not desire to expend an exorbitant amount of money in development costs. The offeror will be evaluated on the extent to which the offeror describes how its Automated Management and Inventory Information System will meet the requirements of the PWS.

The system must report on multiple services nationwide, provide user friendly report capability, real time access and ease in ability to analyze data; processes and procedures in place to manage data nationally and by any combination of sites for warehouse, transportation, repairs, other logistics services and work order processing operations; technical solution to manage system requirements as identified in the PWS to include, but not limited to system access, operations and maintenance, documentation, security requirements, data storage, exchange, reports, and disclosure; meet all of the requirements outlined in TE-9, ERC/KISAM Cycle Times; meets the requirements in TE-10, AMIS Data Elements, and ensures the automated system has the ability to communicate and transfer work orders and other information between itself and the IRS’ ERC/KISAM system.

M – 2

Sub-Factor 1.2 – Warehouse Services (Basic Services) – the offeror will be evaluated on its ability to meet all of the storage requirements outlined in Section C, TE-3. In addition, the offeror will be evaluated on its ability to manage, and maintain multiple warehouse operations and loading docks, maintaining an accurate inventory, timely processing of work orders and effectively provide the proper stewardship of Government property.

Sub-Factor 1.3 – Transportation Services (Basic Services and Cost Plus Fixed Fee) – the offeror will be evaluated on its ability to provide dependable, sustainable and timely point-to-point transportation activities on scheduled and unscheduled pickups and deliveries. In addition, the offeror will be evaluated on its ability to ensure special handling of tax documents, timely response to work orders, accurate tracking of workload, management of a vehicle fleet; adequacy of the proposed vehicle fleet, both in terms of the size and number of vehicles proposed to handle the workload and schedules in effect at all work locations.

Sub-Factor 1.4 – Repair Services (Basic Services and Cost Plus Fixed Fee) – the offeror will be evaluated on its ability to provide timely, efficient and cost effective repair services including activities relating to inspection and repairing equipment; processing work orders; tracking and reporting work activities; managing repair services and locksmith operations nationwide; quickly complete emergency and high priority service requirements; contingency plans for meeting workload requirements, especially during peak periods.

Sub-Factor 1.5 – Other Logistics Services (Basic Services and Cost Plus Fixed Fee) – the offeror will be evaluated on its ability to provide accurate and timely box and property moves from point-to-point; labor support, disassembling and reassembling furniture; packing and unpacking; and tracking and reporting activities and workload.

Factor 2 - Management Approach

The offeror will be assessed on their ability to clearly and effectively provide adequate staffing, acceptable quality control, efficient phase-in, strike contingency planning, third-party vendor (sub-contractor) management and the following plans:

M – 3

Sub-Factor 2.1 - Phase-in Plan (Successor Only) – the offeror must clearly describe the activities to occur during the phase-in period; describe all required actions for timely, seamless transition of operations from the current contractor to full performance by the successor within 90 calendar days after award without degradation of services. The plan must have a timeline and milestones that affect the transfer; must show the approach for minimizing disruption to IRS employees, their respective customers, and other affected stakeholders. The plan shall also describe in sufficient detail the procedures the offeror will use to ensure the appropriate level of Government involvement to support the transition.

Sub-Factor 2.2 - Staffing Plan – the offeror must clearly demonstrate the ability to provide an appropriate organizational structure, control, coordinate and direct offerors resources, in house and sub-contractors in order to meet day to day workload requirements, including peak filing season. The offeror must clearly demonstrate their knowledge of the labor market in order to recruit, hire, train, retain and replace competent resources capable of performing the services required over the life of this contract.

Sub-Factor 2.3 - Quality Control Plan (QCP) – the offeror must clearly demonstrate the methodologies for ensuring sustained quality improvement. The QCP will be evaluated based on the extent the offeror describes its ability to provide satisfactory internal and external quality control approaches for measuring, tracking, analyzing, reporting and implementing preventive and corrective actions for accomplishment of all contract requirements.

Sub-Factor 2.4 - Strike Contingency Plan – the offeror must clearly demonstrate their plan of action to be taken to ensure the continuance of services if there is a work stoppage due to activities such as a strike.

Sub-Factor 2.5 - Sub-Contractor Management Plan – the offeror must clearly demonstrate those activities that will be performed by a subcontractor(s); how the offeror will oversee subcontractor activities; how the offeror will provide quality control over subcontractor work and how the offeror will meet the small business subcontracting goals.

Sub-Factor 2.6 - Physical Security Plan – the offeror must clearly demonstrate the basic internal process the offeror will put in place to ensure the proper control of access to Government property, inventory, keys and facilities.

M – 4

The plan shall address how security awareness will be provided to the employees and maintained over the course of the contract and describe the offeror’s processes for obtaining the documentation needed to meet the requirements for “staff-like” access for its employees. The plan shall address the integration with IRS security plans.

Sub-Factor 2.7 Safety Program Plan – the offeror must clearly demonstrate the processes and procedures that the offeror will use to prevent accidents and preserve the life and health of contractor and government personnel and the public, and that protects contractor and government work and property. The plan shall address how the offeror plans to satisfy relevant IRS and OSHA requirements and how safety awareness will be maintained over the course of the contract. The offeror shall implement a safety program based on the final approved safety plan.

Sub-Factor 2.8 - Continuity of Operations Plan – the offeror must clearly demonstrate the comprehensive procedures to manage contingency situations including the delineation of responsibilities between the Government and the offeror, and the coordination between the Government and the offeror.

Sub-Factor 2.9 - Government Property (GP) Plan – the offeror must clearly demonstrate the comprehensive procedures for the receipt, operation, tracking, recording and reporting of GP; sufficiency of the proposed safeguards against the mishandling and misuse of GP;

management of detailed Government property inventory reports, annual physical inventories; property shortages; damages; proper care, use, maintenance and repair of all GP and the use of alternative facilities.

Factor 3 - Relevant Experience

The offeror will be evaluated on its relevant experience with warehousing, transportation, other Logistics Services and the management of a geographically dispersed workforce that are similar in size, scope and complexity of the requirements in this Performance Work Statement. The projects must have been underway for at least six months, and either be ongoing or have been completed within the last five years. Similar in size, scope, and complexity means a clear demonstration that projects cited are similar in dollar value, type and complexity of work assignments.

M – 5

Factor 4 - Past Performance

The offeror’s past performance will be evaluated using questionnaires completed by prior/current clients. These questionnaires are designed to provide the IRS with information about the quality of performance on previous projects. In determining the scores to be earned, evaluators will also consider similarity of prior projects in magnitude and scope. High quality work on more similar projects to the IRS requirement will be rated more favorably than high quality work on less similar projects. The government may also, at its discretion, obtain and evaluate information from sources other than those provided by the offeror.

Offerors without a record of past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available may not be rated favorably or unfavorably. Those offerors will receive a rating of Neutral.

Factor 5 - Key Personnel

The resumes and references of personnel proposed to fill the key positions identified will be evaluated to determine the relevance of skill levels, background, education, training, and years of management experience in performing/managing the effort required under the proposed contract. The following positions are designated as key personnel:

Program Manager

Deputy Program Manager

Project Leaders at all Campus and Computing Center Locations

Factor 6 - Subcontracting Goals

This plan will be evaluated to determine whether the prospective offeror meets or exceeds the IRS and Treasury specified goals for small, HUBZone, small-disadvantaged, small woman-owned, and small service-disabled veteran-owned businesses on this contract effort. Evaluation includes consideration of the prospective offeror’s three most recent SF 294 and SF 295 subcontract reports.

Sub-Factor 6.1 – Small Disadvantaged Business Participation – The Offeror will be evaluated on the extent to which the Offeror proposes to meet the IRS SDB goals, the extent to which SDB concerns are specifically identified and the extent of commitment to use SDB concerns.

The Government will utilize Attachment J-9, Summary Sheet for Cumulative Target NAICS SDB Data by Category, to assist in evaluating this Sub-Factor.

M – 6

M.4 RATINGS

Listed below are the ratings that will be assigned to each factor and sub-factor. During the evaluation of each proposal, the Government will assign each factor and sub-factor a rating as indicated below. A narrative evaluation reflecting the strength, weaknesses, and deficiencies will be prepared for each factor and sub-factor. The Government will then assign an overall rating for the technical proposal using the same rating scale.

• Excellent: The proposal demonstrates excellent understanding of the requirements and an approach that significantly exceeds PWS requirements.

The proposal has two or more strengths, with no weaknesses, that will significantly benefit the IRS.

• Good: The proposal demonstrates good understanding of the requirements and an approach that exceeds PWS requirements. The proposal has no weaknesses and at least one strength that will benefit the IRS.

• Satisfactory: The proposal demonstrates a satisfactory understanding of the

SOW requirements and an approach that meets PWS requirements. The proposal presents an acceptable solution, but has no strengths. Any weaknesses can be minimized with normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring.

• Unsatisfactory: The proposal demonstrates a major lack of understanding of the PWS requirements and contains one or more deficiencies, weaknesses and/or major mistakes. A rating of unsatisfactory reflects the view that the deficiencies, lack of understanding of the PWS, mistakes or weaknesses can not be corrected through proposal revision. The proposal offers a high, unacceptable risk of poor performance.

• Neutral: Those Offerors without a record of past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available may not be rated favorably or unfavorably. Those offerors will receive a rating of Neutral.

An unsatisfactory rating for any factor will render the entire proposal unsatisfactory.

M – 7

M.5 EVALUATION OF PAST PERFORMANCE

The Government will evaluate the quality of the Offeror's past performance, and assign an appropriate rating. This evaluation is separate and distinct from the Contracting Officer's responsibility determination. The assessment of the Offeror's past performance submitted pursuant to Section L, paragraph L.12, Present/Past Performance, will be used to evaluate the relative capability of the Offerors to successfully meet the requirements of the RFP.

If an Offeror does not have sufficient past performance to list the required contracts, the Offeror may include as part of the list, contracts of any significant subcontractor that the Offeror will use in performance of this contract and, if the Offeror is a combination of firms (for example, a partnership or joint venture), contracts of any companies that make up the Offeror. The Past performance of "key personnel” will not be considered.

(b) The Government reserves the right to obtain information for use in the evaluation of past performance from any other Government database(s) and all sources, including sources outside of the Government, and the information gathered shall be used during the evaluation. The Offeror must provide the information requested in Section L.12 for past performance evaluation or affirmatively state that it possesses no relevant directly related or similar past performance.

The Government reserves the right not to evaluate or consider for award the entire proposal from an Offeror which fails to provide the past performance information and fails to assert that it has no directly related or similar past performance.

M.6 PRICE EVALUATION

Price will not receive an adjectival rating, however, for award purposes, the Government will use the offeror’s proposed combined total price for the Phase-In (if applicable), total proposed price for the Base Period and total proposed price for all subsequent Option Periods for evaluation purposes. The total proposed amount of each offer will be the sum of the offeror’s proposed total prices for the Phase-In (if applicable), Base Period and all option periods. The purpose of the price evaluation is to determine the realism and adequacy of the offeror’s proposed price in relation to the solicitation and the offeror’s technical proposal, and to provide an assessment of the overall reasonableness of the proposed price.

Cost Realism: The proposed price shall be evaluated to determine if the price is realistic for the work to be performed, reflects a clear understanding of the requirements, and is consistent with the offeror’s technical proposal.

M-8

The Government reserves the right to adjust the costs and fee either upward or downward as a result of the cost realism analysis.

Price Reasonableness: All proposed costs will be evaluated in accordance with FAR Part 15. Reasonableness of an offeror’s price may be evaluated through price and/or cost analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404-1.

M.7 SMALL AND DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS PARTICIPATION PLAN

This plan will be evaluated to determine whether the prospective Offeror meets or exceeds the IRS and Treasury specified goals for small, HUBZone, small-disadvantaged, small woman-owned, and small service-disabled veteran-owned businesses on this contract effort. Evaluation includes consideration of the Offeror’s three most recent SF 294 and SF 295 subcontract reports.

M.8 EVALUATION OF OPTIONS

The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. Evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the options.

M.9 BEST VALUE

In determining best value, costs that are not common to both a successor and the incumbent, will be backed out in order to level the playing field for all offerors.

Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal provides the best value to the government, price and non-price factors considered. Non-price factors, when combined, are significantly more important than total overall evaluated price.

M-9