tirno16r00006_truncated_post_attachment_2B.pdf

Attachment 2B, Truncated section of RFP

SECTION V

PROPOSAL PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS

1. These instructions prescribe the format of proposals and describe the approach to be used in the development and presentation of proposal data. They are designed to ensure the submission of information essential to the understanding and comprehensive evaluation of each offeror’s proposal.

The proposals submitted in response to this solicitation shall be formatted as described in this part. A cover letter may accompany each proposal to set forth any information that the offeror wishes to bring to the attention of the Government. Proposals shall be prepared in accordance with these instructions, providing all required information in the format specified. A proposal that fails to show compliance with these instructions may be removed from the competition.

All originals shall contain the Offeror’s signature. Technical proposals shall be clearly and concisely written as well as neat, indexed (cross-indexed as appropriate) and logically assembled. All material submitted should be directly pertinent to the requirements of this RFQ. Extraneous narrative, elaborate brochures, uninformative “PR” material and so forth, should not be submitted. All pages of each part shall be appropriately numbered and identified with name of the proposal, date, and the solicitation number. The Technical and Price Proposals should be submitted in two separate volumes.

Each offeror shall submit five copies of the technical proposal and five copies of the business proposal.

Technical proposals shall not exceed fifty pages (50) IN LENGTH. A page is defined as a single sided 8 ½ x 11 sheet with standard font type (minimum font size sample – Times New Roman 12). Pages contained in the technical proposal which exceed this page limitation will not be read nor evaluated. Proposal evaluation will be based upon quality of content, not length or elaborateness.

The 50 page limit for proposals does not include the Business Proposal, the Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan, or the Transition Plan.

1.1 TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

This section of the proposal shall consist shall consist of the offeror’s response to the Government’s technical requirements. The format shall follow the description incorporated below.

(a) Technical/Management Approach. The offeror shall provide its proposed approach and methodology to accomplishing the work identified in the Performance Work Statement. The offeror shall describe how it will provide the necessary management, supervision and labor to perform the tasks described at the various locations, as well as how it will manage a geographically dispersed work force.

(b) Relevant Experience. The offeror shall provide a brief description of three previous projects, both governmental (Local/State/Federal) and non-governmental, of similar size, scope, and complexity. The projects must have been underway for at least six months, and have either be on going or have been completed within the last two years. Similar size, scope, and complexity means a clear demonstration that the projects cited are similar in dollar amount, type, and complexity or work assignments, number of client/customer employees serviced and number of employees supervised.

(c) Quality Control Systems. The offeror shall describe in detail its quality control system, and how that system will ensure services are completed with a consistently high level of quality at all sites throughout the course of the contract.

(d) Past Performance. The offeror shall provide the Past Performance Questionnaire to three clients with whom it has done business within the last five years. The offeror’s client respondents shall return the completed questionnaires directly to the Contracting Officer via direct mail or via e-mail by the due date and time for receipt of proposals. Offerors without a record of past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. The Government may, at its discretion, obtain and evaluate information from sources other than those provided by the offeror.

(e) Key Personnel. The offeror shall provide resumes of the proposed key personnel that describe their background, education, training and skills relevant to perform the work and position to be filled. Resumes shall include three references (include name, title, address, telephone number and e-mail address).

2. BUSINESS PROPOSAL

In this section, the offeror shall provide detailed backup and rationale supporting its pricing and pricing tables.

The offeror shall also respond to each requirement of Parts III and IV of the RFP and affirmatively state that the offeror proposes to comply. It is not necessary to respond on a paragraph by paragraph basis except as required for clarity. The contractor shall also include a signed copy of the SF 1449 in this section.

The offeror shall also provide its detailed price proposal, including all pricing information requested in Part I, as well as any supplementary material necessary to support the information required in Part I. A projected travel allowance of $250,000.00 per year will be allotted for each proposal, as outlined in Part I. Note that this is a projected amount only. All travel shall be done on an as required basis, authorized by the COR, and in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulations and the applicable Federal Travel Regulations, and shall be reimbursed based upon allowable cost.

3. AMENDMENTS TO PROPOSAL

Changes to the proposal by the offeror shall be accomplished by amended pages. Changes from the original page shall be indicated by a vertical line, adjacent to the change, on the outside margin of the page. The offeror shall include the date of the amendment on the lower right hand of the page as well as the amendment number which caused the change.

4. DISCUSSIONS AND CORRESPONDENCE

All communications concerning the solicitation, including any of a technical nature, must be must be made through the Contracting Officer, whose contact information is listed RFP. All verbal communications should also be directed to that individual.

Questions concerning any technical aspect of the solicitation must be in writing. In order to ensure a timely response, questions should be received by the Contracting Officer at least ten days before the closing date for receipt of proposals.

The Government may establish a competitive range and conduct discussions with those offerors in the competitive range. The Government reserves the right to make award without discussions, so offerors should submit their best proposals on their most advantageous terms in their initial response to this RFP.

5. DISPOSITION OF PROPOSALS

After evaluation, selection and contract award, unsuccessful proposals will be disposed as of as follows: one copy of each proposal will be retained by the Contracting Officer and the remainder will be destroyed.

6. EVALUATION PROCEDURES

6.1 Evaluation of Technical Proposal

Each offeror’s technical proposal will be evaluated using an adjectival rating system by the Technical Evaluation Committee, that will conduct its evaluation in accordance with the criteria described immediately below. It is important that the offeror carefully the criteria and their relative weights in developing its proposal.

7. TECHNICAL CRITERIA

7.1 CRITERION 1: TECHNICAL/MANAGEMENT APPROACH (40% of technical score)

The Offeror shall be assessed on the clarity and completeness of its proposed approach and methodology, and the degree to which it demonstrates the necessary management, supervision and labor expertise and availability to satisfactorily perform the specific tasks described in the Performance Work Statement. The transition plan and project management plan will also be evaluated under this factor. Simple statements by offerors attesting to their understanding of and compliance with all technical requirements or paraphrasing such requirements will not be deemed adequate and will cause an offer to receive a low score for this criterion.

7.2 CRITERION 2: RELEVANT EXPERIENCE (30% of technical score)

The offeror's relevant experience will be evaluated. The offeror shall be assessed on the similarity of its experience to the IRS requirement with respect to size, scope, and complexity. Offerors must clearly demonstrate that the experience they cite is similar to the IRS requirement.

7.3. CRITERION 3: QUALITY CONTROL (QC) SYSTEMS (15% of technical score)

The offeror's quality control systems will be evaluated on its appropriateness and applicability to this requirement, and on how successful the QC system has been in ensuring quality standards in a widespread staffing situation. The offeror’s proposed QA plan, as well as the contractor’s proposed acceptable quality levels and incentives in response to the draft QASP, will be evaluated under this factor. Evaluators will consider comprehensiveness, relevance and realism of the control systems in determining scores to be earned for this criterion.

7.4 CRITERION 4: PAST PERFORMANCE (10% of technical score)

The offeror's past performance will be evaluated using questionnaires completed by prior 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. Offeror’s without a record of past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.

7.5 CRITERION 5: KEY PERSONNEL (5% of technical score)

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, skills and years of generalized/specialized experience in performing/managing the effort required under the proposed contract.

7.6. CRITERION 6: SECTION 508 (Pass/Fail)

8. PRICE: The CO will be responsible for evaluation of the business proposals. Price will be evaluated, but not point scored. Non-Price Factors when combined, are significantly more important than Price. Additionally, each non-price factor is significantly more important than Price. The combination of all non-price factors will be evaluated against Price. Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal provides the best value to the Government.

9. ADJECTIVAL RATINGS TO BE USED IN THE EVALUATION OF TECHNICAL

PROPOSAL

The following adjectival matrix will be used for all non-cost/price factors except relevant experience and Section 508s.

Excellent

The proposal contains several strengths. Most are significant, and any minimal minor weaknesses do not require discussions, and no deficiencies.

Based on information provided, there is no doubt that the contractor demonstrates an exceptional understanding of the services required to exceed most contract requirements. The highest quality of contract performance is anticipated with little or no risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Very Good

The proposal contains strengths. Some are significant, and there are minimal minor weaknesses that do not require discussions, and no deficiencies. Based on the information provided, there is little doubt that the contractor demonstrates a high quality of understanding of the services required to meet or exceed some contract requirements. There is a high probability of success with little or no risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Good

The proposal contains no or very few significant strengths, some minor weaknesses that will not prevent successful completion of the contract, and no deficiencies. Based on the information provided, the contractor demonstrates the minimum level of understanding of the services required to meet contract requirements. There is a fair probability of success with a moderate degree of acceptable risk.

Marginal

The proposal contains no significant strengths, a number of minor weaknesses, and no or very few significant weaknesses, and no deficiencies. The weaknesses will not prevent successful completion of the contract. Based on the information provided, the contractor demonstrates the minimum level of understanding of the services required to meet contract requirements. There is a fair probability of success with a

Inadequate

The proposal contains deficiencies and/or a number of significant weaknesses that may prevent successful completion of the contract, but could contain strengths. Based on the information provided there is doubt that the contractor understands the services required to meet the contract requirements. Requirement/services can be met only with major changes to the proposal. There is a low probability of success with multiple minor risks or one of more major risks that, if not mitigated, will likely impede successful performance.

The following categorical descriptions shall be used to derive an adjectival evaluation of the Offeror’s Relevant Experience:

EXCELLENT: Highly relevant experience record involving contracts similar in size, scope, and complexity to the solicitation requirements. Experience significantly and consistently exceeds contract requirements to the Government's benefit through innovation or business process reengineering techniques, resulting in added value to the Government. There were no quality, cost or schedule issues identified. Risk to successful performance is low.

ACCEPTABLE: Relevant or highly relevant experience record involving contracts of similar size, scope, and complexity to the solicitation requirements. Experience meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element contains some minor problems for which proposed corrective actions taken by the contractor appear satisfactory, or completed corrective actions were satisfactory. There is an low amount of risk to successful contract performance.

MARGINAL: Relevant or somewhat relevant experience record involving contracts similar in size, scope, and complexity to the solicitation requirements. Experience does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has submitted minimal corrective actions, if any. The contractor’s proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented. There is a moderately risk that the contractor will not successfully perform.

UNACCEPTABLE: May have a relevant experience record involving contracts similar in size, scope, and complexity to the solicitation requirements, however, performance does not meet contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely or cost effective manner. The contractual experience of the element contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor's corrective actions appear or were ineffective. There is an unacceptably high risk that the contractor will not successfully perform.

NEUTRAL: The absence of relevant present and past experience information will result in the assignment of a neutral rating. Unknown risk. (The contractor has little or no recent/relevant experience upon which to base a meaningful performance risk prediction.)