Combined_Synopsis_Solicitation.pdf

Combined Synopsis/Solicitation Number: W912HQ-17-T-0040 – Request for Proposals

This is a combined synopsis/solicitation for commercial items prepared in accordance with the format FAR 12.603 – Streamlined Solicitation for Commercial Items, as supplemented with additional information included in this notice. This announcement constitutes the only solicitation. Offers are being requested and a written solicitation will not be issued. This solicitation document and incorporated provisions and clauses are those in effect through Federal Acquisition Circular 2005-95, dated Jan 19, 2017

The requirement is for a 100% Woman-Owned-Small-Businesses (WOSB) set-aside under NAICS code 541519, Other Computer Related Services. The size standard for this NAICS codes is $27.5M.

Description: The US Army Corps of Engineer (USACE) requires professional services for the Institute for Water Resources (IWRs) Enterprise Management Tool (EMT). This includes services of system maintenance, data file updates and functionality development for the current EMT which includes two components, a Project Management Tool, and a Dashboard.

The current Project Management tool has been operational since 2009 and the Dashboard since 2015. The operational EMT resides within the Corps network (Corpnet) and is under a Corps system called P2. The EMT is a tool for project, program, and enterprise management.

It is a repository of data, which is used to generate project, program, and enterprise management

Contract Line Items: This requirement and associated contract line item numbers (CLIN) are provided in Attachment 1, Schedule and Clauses.

Basis for award: The Government will award a contract resulting from this combined synopsis solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer, conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The evaluation factors are Technical/Management, Past Performance, and Price.

Offerors are required to be actively registered with the System for Award Management (SAM) at www.sam.gov prior to award. Offerors are highly encouraged to download and review all attachments to this solicitation prior to submitting an offer.

Period and Place of Performance:

Performance shall primarily take place at the awardees location. The Period of performance will be one base year and two one-year option periods. Work is estimated to begin towards the end of August 2017.

Date, Time, and Place Offers are Due: Questions are due on or before1:00 pm Eastern Daylight Time (EDT), on Thursday, 27 July 2017. The closing date for the delivery of a response to this combined synopsis solicitation is on or before 1:00 pm Eastern Daylight Time (EDT), on Monday, 2 August 2017. Offers should be e-mailed or mailed to the Point of Contact (POC) shown below by the closing date and time. If offers are mailed, an electronic version of the offer (i.e. CD, DVD, etc.) should accompany the paper copy. If an offer is e-mailed to the POC shown below, it is the offeror’s responsibility to ensure that the transmission is received by the Government prior to the closing date and time. Upon receipt of an electronic offer, the Government will acknowledge receipt of that offer via email to the offeror.

POC: Justin C Balster Address: 7701 Telegraph Road, Alexandria, VA 22315 Phone: 703-428-7105 Email: justin.c.balster@usace.army.mil

Enclosed:

Attachment 1 Schedule and Clauses Attachment 2 Performance Work Statement (PWS) Attachment 3 Wage Determination

EVALUATION CRITERIA

52.212-1 INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS—COMMERCIAL ITEMS, ADDENDA

As required in 52.212-1(b), Submission of offers, the offeror shall also include the following information in their proposal package:

Factor 1 – Technical/Management: The Technical factor should include the following information:

Offeror shall describe a technical approach to perform the tasks as required in the PWS and, a narrative description of how the Offeror plans to manage both the administrative and technical aspects of the contract; to include identifying personnel that will be assigned to the contract reflecting experience described above.

Factor 2– Past Performance: The Past Performance factor should include the following information:

(i) Offerors shall submit past performance information for a maximum of 3 contracts or subcontracts completed or on-going within the last 5 years from the release date of this solicitation by the contractor. For joint ventures, offerors may include past performance for each member. On-going contracts must be at least 50% complete or have been in place for at least one year as of the release date of this solicitation. Offerors shall provide a project narrative and reference information in narrative form to address each of the bullets below. All points of contact, addresses, telephone numbers, data, fax numbers, etc.

should be verified by the offeror prior to submission to the Government as part of the offeror’s proposal. Points of contact should be knowledgeable of past performance from a contractual, managerial, and technical perspective.

Project Title Project Description Project Start & Ending Date Offeror’s role in the Project Contract Value/Actual Awarded Amount POCs, Phone, Fax, Address, Email Performance recognition documents Narrative description of relevancy to this PWS, mapped to the PWS where applicable

(ii) The Naval Facilities (NAVFAC)/USACE PPQ Form, included in Enclosure 1, is provided for the offeror to submit to the client for each contract the offeror includes in its proposal for Factor 3 – Past Performance. Ensure correct phone numbers and e-mail addresses are provided for the client point of contact. Completed PPQs should be submitted with the offeror’s proposal. If the offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a client for a contract(s) before proposal closing date, the offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ, which will provide contract and client information for the respective contract(s). The offeror should follow-up with clients/references to ensure timely submittal of questionnaires. If the client requests, questionnaires may be submitted directly to the Government’s point of contact, Mr. Justin Balster via email at justin.c.balster@usace.army.mil before the due date for proposal submission. Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs previously submitted for other Request for Proposals (RFP). However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation

(ii) In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance. 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 codes/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), and any other known sources not provided by the offeror.

Factor 3– Price: The Price factor should include the following information:

This factor will use price analysis to determine the total evaluated price. The offeror's price proposal will be evaluated using the price analysis techniques described at FAR 13.106- 3(a) to help determine which proposal offers the best value to the Government.

52.212-2 EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL ITEMS

(a) The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

Factor 1 – Technical/Management

The Technical/Management Factor evaluation provides an assessment of the offeror’s capability to satisfy the Government’s minimum requirements. Proposals will be evaluated in how well the contractor is capable of performing the tasks as required in the PWS. Proposals will be evaluated on the quality of the contractor’s Management Plan, which provides a narrative of how the Offeror plans to manage both the administrative and technical aspects of the contract as well as identifying personnel that will be assigned to the contract demonstrating the experience described above.

The Technical Factor Rating, excerpted below, focuses on strengths, deficiencies, weaknesses, risks and uncertainties of the offeror’s proposal. The color rating depicts how well the offeror’s proposal meets the Technical and Experience Factors.

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 weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

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.

Purple

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.

Green

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.

Unacceptable

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

Red

Factor 2 - Past Performance

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s record of past and current performance to ascertain the probability of successfully performing the required efforts of this PWS. This evaluation includes considering the relevancy of the submitted past performance along with the quality of work of those efforts. Highly relevant past performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser complexity, Dollar value, and/or contract type.

Relevant contracts are those completed or ongoing for the same or similar in nature, complexity, and dollar value to the work required in this solicitation’s PWS. Contracts must have been completed within the last five (5) years from the solicitation release date.

Ongoing contracts must be at least 50% complete or have been in place for at least one year by the solicitation release date. A significant achievement, problem, or lack of relevant data in any element of the work can become an important consideration in the evaluation process. Therefore, offerors will be reminded to include the most recent and relevant efforts in their proposal.

Absent any recent and relevant past performance history or when the performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned, 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, including data in Government files or data obtained through interviews with personnel familiar with the contractor and their current and past performance under Federal, State or Local government or commercial contracts for same or similar services. 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 past performance factor considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract requirements. There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation: relevancy and quality assessment.

RELEVANCY: The first aspect of the past performance evaluation is to assess the offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. Past Performance on projects that are similar in size and scope to this project may be considered to be more advantageous to the Government. Relevancy is not separately rated; however, the following criteria will be used to establish what is relevant which shall 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.

QUALITY ASSESSMENT: The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the contractor performed on the contracts. The quality of the offeror’s relevant past performance will be determined by results from Past Performance Questionnaires, interviews, CPARS, and other sources form the support and basis for this assessment.

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT: The final step is to provide a single consensus performance confidence assessment for the offeror, selecting the most appropriate rating from the chart below. The past performance confidence assessment rating is based on the offeror’s overall record of relevancy, and quality of performance.

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.

Factor 3 – Price

Price will not be scored or rated, but will be evaluated to determine whether it is reasonable. Normally, price reasonableness is established through adequate competition, but may also be determined through price analysis techniques as described in FAR 13.103-3. 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 shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s). The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable and may be rejected if the prices are unreasonably high.

The award will be made using trade-off procedures where Technical/Management and Past Performance are equal. When combined, Technical/Management and Past Performance are significantly more important than Price.

(a) 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. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

(b) A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer's specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.