13r0009_RFP_Document_(Eval_Factors_ _Submittal_Instrctns)__2014.02.07.pdf

W912HP-13-R-0009

EVALUATION FACTORS & SUBMITTAL INSTRUCTIONS

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD & INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

A. BASIS FOR AWARD

The Government will utilize the Best Value Tradeoff Process for Source Selection in accordance with FAR 15.101-1 to determine best value. This process permits tradeoffs among cost or price and non-cost factors.

Award will be made to the Offerors proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the proposals received, including the evaluation factors described in paragraph B of this section. To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than “Acceptable” must be achieved for the Technical Factor. The government considers it to be in its best interest to allow award to other than the lowest priced Offeror or other than the highest technically rated Offeror. The perceived benefits of the higher priced proposal shall merit the additional cost, and the rationale for tradeoffs must be documented in the file in accordance with FAR 15.406. NOTE: NON-PRICE FACTORS, WHEN COMBINED, ARE SIGNIFICANTLY MORE IMPORTANT THAN PRICE.

B. FACTORS AND SUB-FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

All proposals will be evaluated on the factors listed below. Offerors are required to provide data addressing all stated factors in a clear and understandable format. If an Offeror does not have data relating to a specific factor, it shall be clearly stated in the proposal. Proposals that do not clearly address all factors may be considered unacceptable and may not receive further consideration. The non-price and price factors are as follows:

NON-PRICE FACTORS

Factor 1: Corporate Relevant Specialized Experience Factor 2: Technical Approach for Seed Project Factor 3: Past Performance

PRICE FACTOR

Factor 4: Price

Relative Importance of Evaluation Factors. In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), the non-price factors (factors 1 - 3), when combined, are significantly more important than price (factor 4). In addition, the non-price factors (factors 1 - 3) are equal in importance to each other.

C. EVALUATION APPROACH

All proposals shall be subject to evaluation by the Source Selection Team (SST).

1. NON-PRICE FACTORS (Factors #1-3): Data provided in response to the non-price factors shall be included in Volume I, “Non-Price Proposal.” Only data from the Offeror will be evaluated. If the Offeror is a joint venture (JV), the Offeror must provide evidence of a binding teaming agreement or other contractual agreement which creates legal responsibility on the part of all contractors in the joint venture and submit evidence or confirm that the JV submitted its paperwork to its local Small Business Administration Office for this specific requirement. If the Offeror proposes to utilize a “key subcontractor,” as described in FAR 9.601(2), and the past performance of that “key subcontractor,” the Offeror must submit evidence of a binding teaming arrangement between the Offeror and the “key subcontractor.” At a minimum, evidence of a binding teaming arrangement shall consist of a notarized letter of commitment http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm#P19_2844 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm#P19_2844 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm#P584_117420 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm#P243_37497 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/09.htm#P709_126697 that is signed by both the Offeror and the “key subcontractor,” specifically describing the role the “key subcontractor” will provide, and stating that the “key subcontractor” will perform as described within the letter of commitment.

RELEVANT CONTRACTS. A “relevant contract” is defined as a federal or commercial contract under which the Offeror’s labor was spent directly or substantially in support of or implementing one or more of the types of work outlined in the PWS. Additionally, a contract will only be considered “relevant” if it meets the following criteria:

1. Substantially Complete - the final product has been submitted at least 75% of the services have been completed with interim products submitted.

2. Recent – services completed or substantially completed within five (5) years of the issuance date of this solicitation.

3. Contract – a standalone contract or task order issued against an indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity (IDIQ) type contract.

a. DEFINITIONS. The following definitions are provided to assist evaluators in the evaluation process:

Deficiency. A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. See FAR 15.001.

Strength. An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Significant Strength. An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that has appreciable merit or appreciably exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be appreciably advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Weakness. A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

See FAR 15.001.

Significant Weakness. A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

Uncertainty. Any aspect of a non-cost/price factor proposal for which the intent of the Offeror is unclear (e.g., more than one way to interpret the offer or inconsistencies in the proposal indicating that there may have been an error, omission or mistake).

Clarification. Limited exchanges between the Government and Offerors that may occur when award without discussions is contemplated. See FAR 15.306.

Adverse Past Performance. Past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating from sources where the information is from other than formal rating systems such as “Past Performance Information Retrieval System” (PPIRS) or “Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System.” (FAPIIS).

b. Factor 1: Corporate Relevant Specialized Experience. The Government’s experience evaluation will be a subjective assessment, based on consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances. Evaluators will assess experience on each relevant contract, as defined above in this section, paragraph C1a. The evaluation criteria for this evaluation factor are as follows:

http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm#P4_308 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm#P4_308 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm#P4_308 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm#P290_46318

1. Contracts submitted by the Offeror will be evaluated to confirm its relevancy.

2. More consideration will be given to an Offeror that demonstrates any of the following:

a. diverse GIS experience (in magnitudes, types of work, contract amount and contract types);

b. experience with complex GIS projects involving disparate disciplines and/or technically challenging work tasks and that require the coordination of multiple priorities;

c. experience with the Federal Government;

d. experience with USACE GIS projects in the last 5 years

c. Factor 2: Technical Approach for Seed Project: This factor evaluates the Offeror’s technical and innovative ability to execute services in accordance with the seed project PWS, provided as an Attachment to this RFP. The evaluation criteria for this factor are as follows:

1. The technical approach is sound and utilizes an effective mix of disciplines and levels of effort commensurate with the seed PWS.

2. The technical approach demonstrates the Offeror has sufficient knowledge to prepare a proposal in a timely manner.

3. More consideration will be given to a technical approach that demonstrates any of the following:

a. Experience to develop, and maintain a fully integrated facility management database through the use of planning, reliable and proven methods;

b. Schedule management ensures completion within the seed project performance period.

e. Ratings for Factors 1 & 2: Factors 1 & 2 will be assigned a rating from the following table based on the evaluation of the Offeror’s proposal in accordance with the requirements of the solicitation.

TABLE 1 – COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weakness. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Purple Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is unawardable.

f. Factor 3: Past Performance Factor. The Government’s past performance evaluation will be a subjective assessment, based on consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances, including any trends in past performance. Evaluators will assess past performance on each relevant contract, as defined above in paragraph C1. The evaluation will include a relevancy rating and confidence assessment, as detailed below. The Government intends to assess the relative risks associated with the Offeror’s performance based on the past performance information provided in the proposal. The Government will focus its inquiries on the Offeror’s (and major subcontractor’s) record of performance as it relates to all solicitation requirements, including cost, schedule, performance, and management of subcontractors. A significant achievement, problem, or lack of relevant data in any element of work can become an important consideration in the evaluation process. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the Offeror to include all relevant information, including demonstrated corrective actions, in its proposal.

Absent any recent and relevant past performance history, the Offeror will be assigned an “unknown confidence rating” and its proposal will not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably on past performance. The Government may use data provided by the Offeror in its proposal and data obtained from other sources. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), including Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the Offeror’s proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources not provided by the Offeror. In rating past performance, the Government may consider available past performance information on predecessor companies, or employment histories of key personnel, or major subcontractors performing key elements of the project. While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information rests with the Offeror.

Data used in conducting performance risk assessments shall not extend past five years prior to the issue date of the RFP, but may include performance data generated during the past five years without regard to the contract award date. The Government will evaluate the relevancy of the information, the source of the information, and general trends in performance, along with any other information, which may help the Government assess performance risk. Information related to significant problems encountered, customer dissatisfaction, and corrective actions taken should be provided.

1. PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS: The first aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the Offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. Relevancy is not separately rated, however. Common aspects of relevancy include similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming:

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings:

Rating Definition

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

2. PAST PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT: The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the contractor performed on the contracts. The past performance evaluation gathers information from customers on how well the Offeror performed those past contracts. In conducting the performance confidence assessment, each Offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings identified below:

Performance Confidence Assessments:

Rating Definition

Substantial Confidence

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the Offeror will be able to ‘successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral)

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

Offerors for whom compliance with FAR 52.219-8 has been established; and/or for whom no negative information has been reported; or those certifying no past performance history of contract containing FAR 52.219-8 will be rated as complying with FAR 52.219-8. Such a rating shall have neither positive nor negative impact on the Offeror’s overall Past Performance evaluation. Offerors for whom negative information has been reported will have such negative information, along with any explanations for comments responding to such negative information supplied by the Offeror, evaluated in accordance with the evaluation criteria for Past Performance. Such evaluation will be substantiated and factored into the Offeror’s overall Past Performance evaluation.

g. PRICE FACTOR (Factor 4): Data provided in support of this factor shall correspond to the following:

1. IDIQ Price Schedule. Offerors shall provide an hourly rate plus overhead information as stipulated in the price schedule. These rates will remain in effect throughout the duration of the contract.

If deemed necessary, the Government will request price breakdown information to assist in price evaluation.

http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/52_215.htm#P1271_218320

2. SEED PROJECT Price Proposal (attachment to this RFP). Offerors shall provide a price for the Seed Project. Offerors are reminded that a price analysis will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.404, and should be prepared to provide price breakdown information if the Contracting Officer requests it. The Government’s price evaluation will be an integrated price analysis, as further detailed below, which will require complete information as described herein. Failure to provide all information requested may be cause to eliminate a price proposal schedule from consideration in the evaluation.

The RFP requires firm-fixed price contract line items. A price reasonableness approach will be utilized by the Government to determine if the proposed prices offered are fair and reasonable. If the Government suspects that any of the prices are unrealistically low (indicating “buy-in”), the Government reserves the right to request further cost/price information from the Offeror and to conduct a cost realism analysis. Offers found to be unreasonably high, unrealistically low, or unbalanced, may be considered to pose an unacceptable risk to the Government and may be rejected on that basis. Labor rates, materials, other direct costs, labor overhead, general and administrative, overhead and any other costs that may be associated with this project may be subject to the Proposal Analysis techniques in accordance with FAR 15.404 to assess the potential risk factor to the Government and to determine fairness and reasonableness of prices contained in the proposals. This includes the comparison of proposed cost/price information received and information to market research, historical procurement data, and/or the Independent Government Estimate and, if necessary, further evaluation to determine cost realism, and distribution of costs.

D. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

1. Introduction. To ensure timely and equitable evaluation of proposals, Offerors must follow the instructions contained herein. Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors. The Offeror shall submit in the proposal all requested information specified in this section of the Request for Proposal (RFP) solicitation at or before the exact time specified. There will be no public opening of the proposals received as a result of this RFP. Failure to meet a requirement shall result in an offer being ineligible for award. Copies of the RFP are available by INTERNET ACCESS ONLY. All RFP documents and any amendments will be made available on the FedBizOpps website (http://www.fbo.gov). It shall be the Offeror’s responsibility to check the website for any amendments.

The Contracting Officer has determined there is a high probability of adequate price competition in this acquisition. Upon examination of the initial offers, the Contracting Officer will review this determination and if, in the Contracting Officer's opinion, adequate price competition exists, no additional cost information will be requested and certification under FAR 15.406-2 will not be required. However, if at any time during this competition, the Contracting Officer determines that adequate price competition no longer exists, Offerors may be required to submit information to the extent necessary for the Contracting Officer to determine the reasonableness and affordability of the price. The Government will evaluate all proposals pursuant to FAR 15.305(a). Offerors are advised that, pursuant to FAR 15.306, the Government reserves the right to eliminate any or all offers from consideration for award at any time prior to award of the contract. Therefore, each initial offer should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a technical and price standpoint. The Government reserves the right to discuss aspects of proposals with Offerors in the competitive range, if one is determined to be necessary, upon completion of the evaluation, and to award a contract to other than the Offeror submitting the lowest priced offer. Offerors are advised that the Government may make award without discussions, clarifications, or any contact concerning the proposals received. Offerors shall not assume that they will be contacted or afforded an opportunity to clarify, discuss or revise their proposals.

http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm#P431_79245 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm#P429_79027 http://www.fbo.gov/ http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm#P588_118412 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm#P274_41678 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm#P274_41678 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm#P290_46315

If an Offeror believes that the requirements in these instructions contain an error, omission, or are otherwise unsound, the Offeror shall immediately notify the Contracting Division in writing (email is the preferred method) with supporting rationale. The Offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussions.

This Request for Proposal (RFP) does not commit the Government to reimburse any costs incurred in the preparation and submission of a proposal or for any other costs incurred by any firm submitting a proposal in response to this solicitation. Issuance of this Request for Proposal does not constitute an award commitment on the part of the Government.

Proposals must set forth full, accurate, and complete information as required by this RFP, (including attachments), if applicable. The penalty for making false statements is prescribed in 18 U.S.C. § 1001.

The Offeror’s proposal shall be submitted in hard copy, with accompanying digital copies, as set forth below. The RFP shall provide the Government address and receipt date for proposal submittal. The Offeror’s proposal shall consist of three (3) volumes as detailed in the table below. Files shall not contain classified data.

Volume No. and Title

Data for Evaluation Factors #

Maximum Pages

Total # of copies to submit

I — Corporate Relevant Specialized Experience & Past Performance Information 1,3 37 Original + 4

II — Seed Project Technical Proposal 2 10 Original + 4

III — Price Proposal 4 N/A Original + 1

Offerors are cautioned that “parroting” of the Technical requirements or the PWS with a statement of intent to perform does not reflect an understanding of the requirement or capability to perform. Offerors are responsible for including sufficient details to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of each proposal.

Proprietary information shall be clearly marked.

2. Inquiries. The Contracting Division is the sole point of contact for this acquisition. Address any questions (including technical questions) or concerns you may have through ProjNet (www.projnet.org).

The bidder inquiry key for this procurement is 7HA3NV-RJV3CW. Additionally, Offerors may contact the Contracting Division POC listed below in this subsection, paragraph 3.

All questions and/or comments should be submitted in ProjNet no later than ten (10) working days prior to the date set for receiving proposals so that they may be given consideration or actions taken prior to receipt of offers. Simple questions and answers will be made via ProjNet. Official amendments to the RFP will be made on FBO (www.fbo.gov).

3. Proposal Submission Requirements. . The Offeror’s proposal shall be submitted in hard copy, with accompanying digital copies, as set forth within this section. The packaging that contains the Proposal shall be marked: “Proposal for RFP No. W912HP-13-R-0009, DO NOT OPEN.”

http://www.projnet.org/ http://www.fbo.gov/

a. Proposals shall be submitted to, and only to, the Contracting Division. The following POC information is as follows:

Contracting Division (CECT-SAC, Joshua Mueller) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Charleston District 69A Hagood Ave Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone No. (843) 329-8071

E-Mail: joshua.d.mueller@usace.army.mil

b. Offerors shall organize proposals in three (3) separate envelopes—one for each volume as described above in this section, paragraph D1. All proposal revisions shall be submitted as page replacements with revised text readily identifiable, e.g. bold face print or underlining. Proposal replacement pages shall be clearly marked “REVISED,” shall show the date of revision, and shall be submitted in the appropriate number of copies (e.g., if four copies of the original page were required, then four copies of the revised page will also be required).

c. An electronic copy of each volume of the proposal shall be submitted on CDs or DVDs, and shall accompany the hard copy submittals. Each disc shall be externally labeled with the solicitation number, volume number, date, and the Offeror’s name. If the hard-copy proposal differs from the electronic version, the hard copy will govern. If the electronic files are of a size at which they must be compressed (zipped), they shall be compressed into one file using WinZip version 6.2 or later. Self extracting exe files will not be accepted. Electronic files shall be in their native format (i.e. doc, xls, ppt, etc.), or if in pdf format, shall be in searchable text.

d. Hard copies of proposal volumes shall be tabbed. Each of the proposal volumes shall include a

Table of Contents that includes the title of the subject matter discussed therein and the page number where the information can be found. The volumes shall be organized in the same order listed in this section, paragraph B1. Each evaluation factor shall be separately tabbed. Proposals that are not correctly tabbed may be considered unacceptable.

e. Offerors shall prepare proposals in the English language. The proposal shall be neatly organized and bound. All pages, except divider tabs, shall be numbered. Pages shall be double-sided, numbered, and shall be typed. Type pitch shall be 10 pitch or larger.

f. Certain proposal volumes/sections are specified to be restricted to a specified number of pages.

For page count purposes, one side of one page will be considered one page. The cover page and table of contents will not be included in the page count. Where applicable, the Government will not evaluate any information on pages that exceed the limitation noted. The Government will not review any information submitted in an appendix or attachment to the proposal.

g. Information presented should be organized so as to pertain to only the evaluation factor in the section that the information is presented. Information pertaining to more than one evaluation factor should be repeated in the tab for each factor.

h. Proposals shall be in a narrative format, organized and titled so that each section of the proposal follows the order and format of the factors set forth below in this section, paragraphs D4-D6.

mailto:joshua.d.mueller@usace.army.mil

i. Any information, presented in a proposal that the Offeror wants safeguarded from disclosure to other parties must be identified and labeled in accordance with the requirements of FAR 52.215-1, Instructions to OfferorsCompetitive Acquisition (Jan 2004),” subparagraph (e), which is found in the RFP.

The Government will endeavor to honor the restrictions against release requested by Offerors, to the extent permitted under United States law and regulations.

4. VOLUME I, CORPORATE RELEVANT SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE & PAST PERFORMANCE

INFORMATION. One envelope shall be clearly marked, “VOLUME I, CORPORATE RELEVANT SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE & PAST PERFORMANCE INFORMATION, RFP NO. W912HP-13-R-0009.” Volume I shall include the following sections:

a. “Executive Summary.” Volume I of the proposal shall include an Executive Summary section which should include an introduction of the proposal team. The Executive Summary shall not exceed two

(2) pages in length. In the summary, Offerors shall provide the name, title and telephone number of the company/division point of contact regarding decisions made with respect to your proposal and who can obligate your company contractually. Also, identify those individuals authorized to negotiate with the government.

b. “Factor 1: Corporate Relevant Specialized Experience.” Volume I of the proposal shall include a section to address the Offeror’s proposed technical capabilities in regard to previous experience.

In this section, Offerors shall identify no less than three (3) but no more than five (5) relevant contracts (as described above in subsection C, paragraph 1). If less than three (3) relevant contracts are submitted, the offeror will be considered ineligible for award. If more than five (5) relevant contracts are submitted, only the first five (5) relevant contracts identified in the proposal will be evaluated. The Offeror must indicate whether it was prime contractor or subcontractor on each project. Offeror shall also describe its primary role/duties in execution of the work (i.e. the major components of the project which were completed by the prime’s staff and major components which were subcontracted). Additionally, Offerors should provide information as to the size, complexity, distinctive/unique features of each project, and any specific information to demonstrate that the project is relevant to this acquisition. At a minimum, for each project submitted, Offerors shall complete and submit the “Corporate Relevant Specialized Experience Form” included as an attachment to this RFP. In addition to this, for the specific purpose of presentation of previous experience, an 11”x17” sheet of paper may be used per project, which will be considered as one page. The majority of the sheet should utilize a 10-12 point font; footnotes may use a smaller font. This section shall not exceed (15) pages total.

c. “Factor 3: Past Performance.” Data provided in support of this factor shall clearly demonstrate the Offeror’s ability to meet the requirements of the contract based on a documented past performance history on submitted relevant contracts as defined above in this section, paragraph C2.

Offerors shall submit past performance information for each example project submitted under Factor 1. If available, submit completed ratings from the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). For projects performed for other commercial or government entities for which there may be no available CPARS ratings, submit the Past Performance Questionnaire provided as an attachment to this RFP. PPQ’s should be completed by the client, and submitted with Offerors’ proposals. However, if the client requests questionnaires may be submitted prior to the proposal due date. In such cases the PPQ’s should be submitted directly to the Government’s point of contact listed in this section, paragraph D2. The Government may contact and interview the points of contact, and reserves the right to interview other mailto:http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/52_215.htm%23P2_52 individuals acting for the listed reference, if the listed reference is not available. The Government may use personal knowledge or information from other sources in its evaluation of an Offeror’s past performance (i.e.

as detailed above in this section, paragraph C1f).

For any contracts that did not/do not meet original schedule or technical performance requirements, Offerors shall provide a brief explanation of the reason(s) for the short-comings and any corrective action(s) taken to avoid recurrence. The Offerors shall list each time the delivery schedule was revised and provide an explanation of why the revision was necessary. All Requests for Deviation and Requests for Waiver shall be addressed with respect to causes and corrective actions. The Offerors shall also provide copy of any Cure Notices or Show Cause Letters received on each contract listed and a description of any corrective action implemented by the Offeroror proposed subcontractor. The Offerors shall indicate if any of the contracts listed were terminated and the type and reasons for the termination. This section shall not exceed (20) pages total. The completed Past Performance Questionnaires will not count towards the page limitation for this section.

5. VOLUME II, Seed Project - Technical Proposal. A second envelope shall be clearly marked, “VOLUME II, SEED PROJECT - TECHNICAL PROPOSAL, RFP NO. W912HP-13-R-0009.” This volume shall include a sample project technical proposal satisfying the project objectives using the information provided in the seed project PWS entitled “ESRI ArcGIS-IBM Maximo Facility Specialist” dated 29 May 2013, provided as an attachment of this RFP. The Offeror shall describe in detail how they will execute each task of the seed proposal. The Technical Proposal shall identify the organization structure, personnel (by title only) who would be used, proposed labor hours for each discipline and what their roles would be.

Any anticipated challenges shall be identified and the Offeror shall describe how the proposed approach will address them. The Offeror shall provide a Gantt chart which includes the tasks and timeline with start and finish dates at a minimum. The Offeror shall provide sufficient detail to allow the reviewer to evaluate the merits and sufficiency of the proposed approach without further discussion.

This volume will be presented for evaluation anonymously. Other than a removable cover page, this volume shall not be marked with any company identifiers whatsoever. Examples of company identifiers include but are not limited to company logos, the mention by name of key personnel, proprietary statements, and security markings. Inclusion of company identifiers on any page in Volume II (other than the aforementioned cover page) shall result in an offer being ineligible for award. Pages shall be typewritten except for the reproduced sections of the solicitation document and the font shall be Times New Roman, size 10 point. A smaller type may be used on charts, graphs, figures, diagrams, and schematics to accommodate a “make to fit” software capability; however, all text shall be legible and easily read. Margins on all four edges of each sheet will be at least one-half (0.5) inch. This volume shall not exceed ten (10) pages.

6. VOLUME III, PRICE PROPOSAL. A third envelope shall be clearly marked, “VOLUME III, PRICE

PROPOSAL, RFP NO. W912HP-13-R-0009.” Volume III shall include the following:

• Original and one (1) copy of completed Standard Form (SF) 1449, using a printed copy of the SF 1449 included this RFP (NOT including the Proposal Schedule).

• Original and one (1) copy of the Offeror’s executed joint venture agreement (if the Offeror is a joint venture).

• Original and one (1) copy each of the following clauses, using a printed copy each as included in this RFP.

FAR 52.209-5 Certification Regarding Responsibility Matters (Apr 2010) FAR 52.209-7 Information Regarding Responsibility Matters FAR 52.212-3 Offeror Representations And Certifications--Commercial Items (Dec 2012) FAR 52.222-22 Previous Contracts and Compliance Reports (Feb 1999)

• Original and one (1) completed copy of the Price Proposal Schedule provided in this RFP.

• Original and one (1) completed copy of the SEED PROJECT Price Proposal Schedule provided as an attachment to this RFP.

Additionally, Offererors are reminded of the following:

a. An active record in the System for Award Management (SAM) is required for award eligibility, and the representations and certifications must also be completed satisfactorily there. The web location for SAM is www.sam.gov.

b. Certified cost and pricing data are not required; however, the Government reserves the right to request Other than cost and pricing data prior to award.

c. Any uncompensated or partially compensated overtime included in the proposal must be identified – per FAR 52.237-10.

d. Pursuant to the Service Contract Act of 1965, the determination by the Secretary of Labor as to the applicable minimum monetary wage and fringe benefits will be made part of any resulting contract.

The applicable Area Wage Determination is included as an attachment to this RFP. The Offeror shall provide proposed labor rates that meet or exceed the wages contained in the Area Wage Determination.

e. For proposal preparation purposes, the expected or approximate date for initiation of contract performance is December 01, 2013.

f. Refer to FAR 52.222-46, Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees.

E. DISCUSSIONS

1. GENERAL INFORMATION. In accordance with FAR 15.306(d), discussion sessions with each Offeror may be held. Should discussions take place, all Offerors in the competitive range will be allowed to submit Final Proposal Revisions.

2. DISCUSSION SCHEDULING. If discussions are conducted, the Contracting Officer will schedule the discussion sessions, and each Offeror will be notified in advanced. The Contracting Officer will provide additional instructions with the notification.

http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/52_000.htm#P1010_146013 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/52_000.htm#P1057_155094 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/52_000.htm#P1467_205610 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/52_220.htm#P297_57603 http://www.sam.gov/ http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/52_237.htm#P90_16717 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/52_220.htm#P806_150076 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm#P290_46318

APPENDIX D2:

CORPORATE RELEVANT SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE DATA SHEET

FACTOR 1: CORPORATE RELEVANT SPECIALIZED EXPERIENCE.

On an attached sheet, provide information for substantially complete or completed projects within the last five years that are similar in terms of cost, complexity, design or features that have been constructed by the Offeror to be used for reference and evaluation purposes. For each project provide the following information:

Project Title:

Location:

Contract number:

Nature of involvement in this project, i.e. General Contractor, subcontractor, designer:

Procuring activity:

Procurement point of contact and telephone number:

Performance period (month/year start to month/year end and # of years complete if underway):

Address of project:

Address and telephone number of owner:

Indicate type of project (private sector, Government, planned unit development, etc.):

General description of project (narrative):

How this project to relevant to the requirements of this solicitation (narrative):

Cost/Price Data (must clearly indicate yearly price information):

Initial Award / Year 2 / Year 3/ etc:

Modifications:

Total cost:

TERMINATED PROJECTS:

Attach a list of any projects within the last three years that have been terminated. Provide an explanation, as well as a Point of Contact (Name, organization, email, phone number) for each terminated project.

APPENDIX D3:

PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE FORM

NAVFAC/USACE PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (Form PPQ-0) CONTRACT INFORMATION (Contractor to complete Blocks 1-4)

1. Contractor Information Firm Name: CAGE Code:

Address: DUNs Number:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

Point of Contact: Contact Phone Number:

2. Work Performed as: Prime Contractor Sub Contractor Joint Venture Other (Explain) Percent of project work performed:

If subcontractor, who was the prime (Name/Phone #):

3. Contract Information Contract Number:

Delivery/Task Order Number (if applicable):

Contract Type: Firm Fixed Price Cost Reimbursement Other (Please specify):

Contract Title:

Contract Location:

Award Date (mm/dd/yy):

Contract Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Actual Completion Date (mm/dd/yy):

Explain Differences:

Original Contract Price (Award Amount):

Final Contract Price (to include all modifications, if applicable):

Explain Differences:

4. Project Description:

Complexity of Work High Med Routine How is this project relevant to project of submission? (Please provide details such as similar equipment, requirements, conditions, etc.)

CLIENT INFORMATION (Client to complete Blocks 5-8)

5. Client Information Name:

Title:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

6. Describe the client’s role in the project:

7. Date Questionnaire was completed (mm/dd/yy):

8. Client’s Signature:

NOTE: NAVFAC/USACE REQUESTS THAT THE CLIENT COMPLETES THIS QUESTIONNAIRE AND SUBMITS DIRECTLY BACK TO THE OFFEROR. THE OFFEROR WILL SUBMIT THE COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRE TO USACE WITH THEIR PROPOSAL, AND MAY DUPLICATE THIS QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FUTURE SUBMISSION ON USACE SOLICITATIONS.

CLIENTS ARE HIGHLY ENCOURAGED TO SUBMIT QUESTIONNAIRES DIRECTLY TO THE OFFEROR. HOWEVER, QUESTIONNAIRES MAY BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO USACE. PLEASE CONTACT THE OFFEROR FOR USACE POC INFORMATION. THE GOVERNMENT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO VERIFY ANY AND ALL INFORMATION ON THIS FORM.

ADJECTIVE RATINGS AND DEFINITIONS TO BE USED TO BEST REFLECT

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE

RATING DEFINITION NOTE

(E) Exceptional Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government/Owner’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor was highly effective.

An Exceptional rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed multiple significant events that were of benefit to the Government/Owner. A singular benefit, however, could be of such magnitude that it alone constitutes an Exceptional rating. Also, there should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.

(VG) Very Good Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s/Owner’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

A Very Good rating is appropriate when the Contractor successfully performed a significant event that was a benefit to the Government/Owner. There should have been no significant weaknesses identified.

(S) Satisfactory Performance meets minimum contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

A Satisfactory rating is appropriate when there were only minor problems, or major problems that the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract. There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified. Per DOD policy, a fundamental principle of assigning ratings is that contractors will not be assessed a rating lower than Satisfactory solely for not performing beyond the requirements of the contract.

(M) Marginal Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor's proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

A Marginal is appropriate when a significant event occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming which impacted the Government/Owner.

(U) Unsatisfactory Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor's corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

An Unsatisfactory rating is appropriate when multiple significant events occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming and which impacted the Government/Owner. A singular problem, however, could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating.

(N) Not Applicable No information or did not apply to your contract Rating will be neither positive nor negative.

TO BE COMPLETED BY CLIENT

PLEASE CIRCLE THE ADJECTIVE RATING WHICH BEST REFLECTS

YOUR EVALUATION OF THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE.

1. QUALITY:

a) Quality of technical data/report preparation efforts E VG S M U N

b) Ability to meet quality standards specified for technical performance E VG S M U N

c) Timeliness/effectiveness of contract problem resolution without extensive customer guidance E VG S M U N

d) Adequacy/effectiveness of quality control program and adherence to contract quality assurance requirements (without adverse effect on performance)

E VG S M U N

2. SCHEDULE/TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE:

a) Compliance with contract delivery/completion schedules including any significant intermediate milestones. (If liquidated damages were assessed or the schedule was not met, please address below)

E VG S M U N

b) Rate the contractor’s use of available resources to accomplish tasks identified in the contract E VG S M U N

3. CUSTOMER SATISFACTION:

a) To what extent were the end users satisfied with the project? E VG S M U N

b) Contractor was reasonable and cooperative in dealing with your staff (including the ability to successfully resolve disagreements/disputes;

responsiveness to administrative reports, businesslike and communication)

E VG S M U N

c) To what extent was the contractor cooperative, businesslike, and concerned with the interests of the customer? E VG S M U N

d) Overall customer satisfaction E VG S M U N

4. MANAGEMENT/ PERSONNEL/LABOR

a) Effectiveness of on-site management, including management of subcontractors, suppliers, materials, and/or labor force? E VG S M U N

b) Ability to hire, apply, and retain a qualified workforce to this effort E VG S M U N

c) Government Property Control E VG S M U N

d) Knowledge/expertise demonstrated by contractor personnel E VG S M U N

e) Utilization of Small Business concerns E VG S M U N

f) Ability to simultaneously manage multiple projects with multiple disciplines E VG S M U N

g) Ability to assimilate and incorporate changes in requirements and/or priority, including planning, execution and response to Government changes E VG S M U N

h) Effectiveness of overall management (including ability to effectively lead, manage and control the program) E VG S M U N

5. COST/FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

a) Ability to meet the terms and conditions within the contractually agreed E VG S M U N price(s)?

b) Contractor proposed innovative alternative methods/processes that reduced cost, improved maintainability or other factors that benefited the client E VG S M U N

c) If this is/was a Government cost type contract, please rate the Contractor’s timeliness and accuracy in submitting monthly invoices with appropriate back-up documentation, monthly status reports/budget variance reports, compliance with established budgets and avoidance of significant and/or unexplained variances (under runs or overruns)

E VG S M U N

d) Is the Contractor’s accounting system adequate for management and tracking of costs? If no, please explain in Remarks section. Yes No

e) If this is/was a Government contract, has/was this contract been partially or completely terminated for default or convenience or are there any pending terminations? Indicate if show cause or cure notices were issued, or any default action in comment section below.

Yes No

f) Have there been any indications that the contractor has had any financial problems? If yes, please explain below. Yes No

6. SAFETY/SECURITY

a) To what extent was the contractor able to maintain an environment of safety, adhere to its approved safety plan, and respond to safety issues?

(Includes: following the users rules, regulations, and requirements regarding housekeeping, safety, correction of noted deficiencies, etc.)

E VG S M U N

b) Contractor complied with all security requirements for the project and personnel security requirements. E VG S M U N

7. GENERAL

a) Ability to successfully respond to emergency and/or surge situations (including notifying COR, PM or Contracting Officer in a timely manner regarding urgent contractual issues).

E VG S M U N

b) Compliance with contractual terms/provisions (explain if specific issues) E VG S M U N

c) Would you hire or work with this firm again? (If no, please explain below) Yes No

d) In summary, provide an overall rating for the work performed by this contractor. E VG S M U N

Please provide responses to the questions above (if applicable) and/or additional remarks.

Furthermore, please provide a brief narrative addressing specific strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, or other comments which may assist our office in evaluating performance risk (please attach additional pages if necessary):