A07_draft_Evalutation_Criteria_CM_Services_W91CRB-16-T-0023.pdf

SECTION II

SOLICITATION PROVISIONS

A. Basis for Award

a. This is a lowest price technically acceptable procurement and will follow the procedures described in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.101-2. Best value is expected to result from the selection of the technically acceptable proposal with the lowest evaluated price. The

Government will base the decision on an evaluation of proposals against all evaluation criteria in the solicitation. The Government intends to award without discussions. However, the

Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if later determined by the Contracting

Officer to be necessary. The Government may reject any or all offers if such actions is in the public interest, and waive informalities and minor irregularities in the offers received.

b. All awards will be predicated upon receipt of proposals that meet the criteria for best value selection stated in the solicitation and are otherwise eligible for award.

c. Pursuant to FAR 52.215-1, the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award the contracts without discussions with offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a));

however, the right to conduct discussions is reserved if the Contracting Officer determines it necessary. In the event of discussions, selection will not be made on initial offers and a competitive range comprised of the most highly rated proposals shall be established in accordance with FAR 15.306(c). If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals. Discussions, as defined in FAR 15.306(d) and FAR 52.215-1(a), will be conducted with all offerors included in the competitive range.

Offerors whose proposals are not included in the competitive range will be so notified. At the conclusion of discussions, each offeror remaining in the competitive range will be given an opportunity to submit a revised proposal.

B. Factors to be Evaluated

Factor 1 – Technical Approach

Factor 2 – Management and Personnel Approach

Factor 3 – Past Performance

Factor 4 - Price

C. Relative Importance of Factors

Tradeoffs are not permitted; proposals shall be evaluated for acceptability but not ranked using the non-cost/price factors.

D. Evaluation Criteria

To receive consideration for award, a rating of Acceptable must be achieved for all factors.

Award will be made to the lowest priced technically acceptable offer. A deficiency in any one of the areas could constitute a basis for rejection of a proposal.

E. Evaluation Approach

Factor 1 – Technical Approach: This factor evaluates the offeror’s understanding of the

DASA-CE’s objectives and ability to perform the technical, analytical and financial services described in the PWS. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s ability to meet all solicitation requirements.

Technical Approach Rating Description

Acceptable The proposal clearly demonstrates the offeror’s understanding of DASA-CE Cost Management Services objectives in support of the Army Enterprise. The proposal clearly demonstrates the offeror’s ability to perform the technical, analytical, and financial services described in the PWS.

Unacceptable The proposal does not meet the standards set forth for an acceptable proposal.

Factor 2 – Management Approach and Personnel: This factor evaluates whether the offeror effectively demonstrates the capability to direct, manage, and control the work to be performed in the PWS.

Management Approach

Rating

Description

Acceptable The proposal meets all the requirements of the solicitation.

The matrix demonstrates a competent, efficient, and effective approach to providing the necessary support. The plan for recruiting and retaining personnel demonstrates a low risk approach to providing qualified personnel. The proposal demonstrates an acceptable approach to integrating, overseeing, and managing staff and subcontractors. The offeror’s transition plans demonstrate the ability to provide smooth phase in and phase out of services. The offeror’s proposal identifies how to exploit the capabilities of the SAP ERP Financial & Controlling

(FICO), Funds Management (FM), and Project Systems

(PS) Modules to support the Army Enterprise and its End-to-End business processes.

Unacceptable The proposal does not meet the standards set forth for an acceptable proposal.

Factor 3 – Past Performance. This factor evaluates the Offeror’s past performance as it applies to fulfilling DASA-CE Cost Management Services requirements and objectives as stated in the

PWS. The Past Performance factor will be assessed based upon the relevancy of recent contracts performed by the offeror to determine the Government’s confidence that the offeror can successfully execute the requirements of the contract. The Government will utilize information pertaining to offeror performance on recent, relevant contracts. The Government will evaluate the Past Performance Information submitted by the offeror and information that is gathered independently of the offeror’s submitted information to assess its past performance. If no relevant past performance information is found or available, the offeror will be given a “neutral” rating (neither favorable nor unfavorable) for past performance in accordance with FAR

15.305(2).

Past Performance Rating Description

Acceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown. (See note below.)

Unacceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has no reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Note: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.”

Factor 4 – Price

Proposed price will not be adjectively rated. The total evaluated price (TEP) will be the sum of all CLINs in Section B except for transition in. Transition in pricing will be evaluated separately for price reasonableness.

The Government will evaluate the overall price of each offeror's price proposal to ensure price offered is fair and reasonable in accordance with the price evaluation criteria in FAR 15.404-1.

Accordingly, the analytical techniques and procedures described in FAR 15.404-1 may be used singly or in combination with others, as determined necessary by the Contracting Officer, to ensure the price is fair and reasonable in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(a)(1).

For the purposes of this solicitation, “realism” as specified in FAR 52.222-46 shall relate to whether the proposed compensation plan reflects a sound management approach to recruitment and retention and understanding of contract requirements. As noted in FAR 52.222-46, the

Government will evaluate the compensation plan to assure that it reflects a sound management approach and understanding of the contract requirements. The professional compensation plan proposed will be considered in terms of its impact upon recruiting and retention, its reasonableness, and its consistency with a total plan for compensation. Professional compensation plans that are unreasonably low or not in reasonable relationship to the various job categories, may be viewed as evidence of failure to comprehend the complexity of the contract requirements since it may impair the contractor’s ability to attract and retain competent professional service employees.

F. Proposal Submission

Proposals shall remain valid for a period of at least 120 days from the due date. Offerors shall submit their proposals electronically to Elizabeth Nordell, Contract Specialist, via e-mail to elizabeth.m.nordell.civ@mail.mil

The Government will consider how well the offeror complied with these instructions when evaluating the offeror’s capability to perform the prospective contract. Offerors are advised to ask the contracting office for clarification of any part of these instructions that they do not understand. Questions shall be submitted to Elizabeth Nordell, Contract Specialist, via e-mail to elizabeth.m.nordell.civ@mail.mil no later than [TBD]

G. General Content of Proposals

1. The offeror’s proposal must include all data and information requested and must be submitted in accordance with these instructions. Any offeror who submits an incomplete package may be considered unacceptable. The offer shall be compliant with the requirements as stated in the

Performance Statement of Work. Non-conformance with the instructions provided may result in an unfavorable proposal evaluation.

2. The proposal shall be clear, concise, and shall include sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiating the validity of stated claims.

3. Elaborate brochures or documentation, binding, detailed art work, or other embellishments are unnecessary and are not desired.

4. The Government intends to evaluate offers and award a contract without discussions.

Therefore, the offeror’s initial offer should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if later determined by the Contracting Officer to be necessary. The Government may reject any or all offers if such action is in the public interest, and waive informalities and minor irregularities in the offers received.

5. Other than the rates included in the letters of commitment, no pricing information shall be included in the non-price factor submissions. Proposals that fail to separate the price factor may be determined unacceptable and may not be considered for award.

6. Proprietary information shall be clearly marked.

7. The Government may incorporate portions of the contractor’s proposal into the contract.

8. Each factor shall be submitted as a separate volume. Proposals shall adhere to the following page count limitations. Excess pages will be removed from the back of each section and will

NOT be read or evaluated.

Volume Page Count

Organizational Conflicts of Interest

(OCI) Risk Mitigation Plan

No page limit

Factor 1 – Technical Approach 50 pages excluding title pages, executive summaries, and table of contents

Factor 2 – Management Approach

20 pages, excluding letters of commitment and/or contingent letters of offer and acceptance, covers, title pages, executive summaries, and table of contents

Maximum 5 citations for the prime. Limit two pages per citation.

No page limit

Each Volume shall be independent. Information relating to a specific factor shall not include references to other volumes or information contained to support other factors.

Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCI) Risk Mitigation Plan

Organizational Conflicts of Interest: The offeror shall conduct due diligence and submit with their proposal an Organizational Conflict of Interest identification and Mitigation Plan. This plan shall identify all facts that a reasonably prudent person would consider relevant in determining whether a potential conflict of interest currently exists or might arise under the performance of this contract. The Offeror shall identify at a minimum all current contracts or financial interests that might be effected by the performance of the PWS. Additionally, the offeror shall identify any potential conflicts of interest, as that term is defined in FAR part 9, that the offeror reasonably believes could arise during the performance of this contract. The offeror’s submission should include any subcontractors or team members. Offerors should be aware that the technical, financial, and operational assistance efforts anticipated under this contract may implicate budgets, priorities, or recommendations of other service or product/system acquisition of the

Army or DOD. Accordingly, offerors should be particularly sensitive to the potential conflicts that might arise should the offeror or its affiliates/subcontractors have any financial interest in other contracts for Army/DOD services or products/systems. The accuracy of the findings presented shall be certified to the best knowledge and belief by an official authorized to bind the company.

The Contracting Officer will review statements provided by each offeror as to the work the company has performed or anticipates; evaluate the submittals considering in-house knowledge as to the company’s program support; and determine whether or not there is an OCI. The

Government’s consideration of this information is for purposes of assessing the contractor’s responsibility and is not otherwise part of the evaluation factors to be considered for award.

For any potential conflicts of interest, the offeror shall provide a mitigation plan to be reviewed and approved by the Contracting Officer. The mitigation plan shall provide verifiable means of eliminating any significant conflict of interest in the performance of this contract. The mitigation plan shall also describe the contractor's current policies for identifying, reporting, and preventing future organizational and personal conflicts of interest that might arise in the performance of this contract.

Factor 1 – Technical Approach

The Offeror shall demonstrate their technical approach to meet the requirements of the solicitation. Detailed responses to specific PWS requirements shall include an explanation indicating the Offeror’s proposed methodology and ability to accomplish PWS tasks. The

Offeror’s response must contain sufficient detail to enable the Government to assess the

Offeror’s capabilities to support DASA-CE Cost Management Service objectives and goals of the PWS.

The Offeror shall present the proposed approach to assure the integration of Army Enterprise

Resource Planning (ERP) systems, referenced End-to-End Business processes, the Army Cost

Framework with Managerial Cost Accounting. Indicate the process/steps to be applied to ensure uninterrupted continuation of performance including:

Describe your understanding of how to integrate multiple Enterprise Resource Planning systems, such as General Funds Enterprise Business Systems (GFEBS), Global Combat

Support System - Army (GCSS-A), Logistics Modernization Program (LMP), and

Integrated Personnel and Pay System – Army (IPPS-A) to provide support for resource-informed, performance-based decision making throughout the Army.

Describe your understanding of the DoD End-to-End business processes specifically to include: Order to Cash, Procure to Pay, Budget to Report, Cost Management and their inter-relationships with Army ERP systems above.

Describe your understanding of the tasks and support you will be providing to DASA-CE and how you will be support the requirements referenced in the PWS.

Describe your understanding of how your team’s critical skills and subject matter expertise will be coordinated to support DASA-CE objectives.

Describe your previous/current experience with SAP Financial Modules, in particular, the

Controlling Module (CO), Project Systems (PS), and Property, Plant & Equipment

(PP&E) and their deployment as related to Army (or similar large scale) ERP systems.

Factor 2 – Management Approach

Offerors shall provide resumes and letters of commitment and/or contingent letters of offer and acceptance counter‐signed by the employer and the prospective employee for the PM and all senior analyst positions listed in the PWS. Resumes shall document the education, experience and other minimum qualifications of the PWS. Letters shall include a fully burdened labor rate.

In addition, an Officer of the offering company shall certify the accuracy of all submitted resumes and the validity of any contingent employment agreements.

The Offeror shall submit proposed personnel with a minimum of a Secret clearance at the start of the performance of the PWS requirements.

The Offeror shall provide a matrix that includes the background, experience, educational level, security clearance, and SAP months of experience (identify specific SAP modules) of the offeror’s proposed personnel. The matrix shall map the proposed employees to the appropriate

PWS tasking and the Government labor category. The matrix must clearly identify all personnel as either “key” or “non-key.”

Offerors shall provide an organizational chart that depicts the organizational functions to be performed in accordance with the PWS. The chart and accompanying description will identify the reporting chain for daily operations and mission events and how the proposed team will interface with both the Offeror’s corporate structure and with the Government.

Offerors shall describe the plan to recruit and retain personnel. The Offeror shall provide metrics that illustrate and support their current and previous recruiting and retention efforts.

Offerors shall indicate how you will integrate your staff into the organizational work flow, present the time line for onboarding staff and how this schedule will support timely assumption of operations responsibility, and provide a plan to manage and supervise the activities of subcontractors if they are part of the proposal. The Offeror should discuss ways that they will provide oversight of work efforts, resolve conflicts, and consolidate and integrate administrative aspects of any prime-subcontractor relationship.

Offerors shall submit a phase-in and phase-out transition plan that enables a smooth transition to replacement services. The phase-in plan shall describe the 30-day transition period before the period of performance starts. Also, the phase-out plan shall describe the 30-day transition period prior to the contract period of performance end date. The Offeror’s plan shall describe the transition from both the perspective of an incoming awardee (phase-in) as well as the perspective of an outgoing incumbent (phase-out).

The Offeror shall present a minimum of 3 and a maximum of 5 performance narratives of recent and relevant contracts AND up to 2 recent, relevant contracts performed by each major subcontractor or team member. A “major subcontractor” is defined as a subcontractor that is proposed to provide $500,000 in effort in any single year during the contract period of performance. A “recent” contract is defined as one that is performed for at least 12 months during the past three years, which are relevant to the efforts required by this solicitation. A

“relevant” contract is defined as those efforts in support of the requirements listed in Part 5 of the

PWS, which are similar to the required effort.

Each past performance narrative shall clearly indicate how the contract effort is both recent and relevant and include the following:

Contractor/company name/division performing the work.

Address

Program identification/title

Government Agency being supported

Contract number

Contract type

Contract value

Contract award date

Forecasted or actual completion date

Describe the nature of the contractual effort and skills mix

Identify any problems encountered during performance and how resolved

Identify any other constraints similar to those expected to be encountered in performing of this solicitation

Identify and explain any contract terminations

The past performance cited does not have to be related to the development of cost management capabilities for any particular Army Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system but should reflect similar experience with other Department of Defense or US Government services such as, the IRS. The Offeror shall highlight previous work efforts that required analytical thinking, senior level briefings and presentations, and graduate level writing skills.

Past Performance POCs Matrix - For each contract reference identified, the offeror shall identify

Government Points of Contact (POCs) (either Contracting Officer, Contracting Officer’s

Representative, or Technical Manager) who can provide information on the Offeror’s contract performance to include the following:

POC name and title

Current telephone number for the POC Current e-mail address for the POC

1. The price proposal shall identify labor categories, descriptions, and fully burdened labor rates.

Travel is not to be included in the price of any task. Travel and other direct costs have been provided and shall not be changed. As part of the price proposal, all offerors shall submit

Attachment 5 - Pricing Table showing the proposed fully loaded rates by hour for each labor category and the number of hours identified in Attachment 4 –Workload Data. Offerors shall not vary from these labor categories and hours.

2. A totaled copy of Section B shall be submitted as part of the price proposal with pricing for the base and 2 one year option periods for a total of 3 years. The total evaluated price (TEP) will be the sum of all CLINs in Section B except for transition in. Pricing information shall be contained and addressed ONLY in the Factor 4-Price Volume.

3. In accordance with FAR 52.222-46, offerors shall submit a total compensation plan setting forth salaries and fringe benefits proposed for the professional employees who will work under the contract. This provision requires that offerors submit for evaluation a total compensation plan setting forth the following for professional employees working on the contract:

a. Proposed salaries

b. Fringe benefits

Offerors shall also submit supporting verification information as attachments to the plan to include actual payroll and fringe benefit/rate data for any proposed employees currently working for the offeror. For any proposed employees not currently working for the offeror, the offeror shall include other verifying data, such as recognized national and regional compensation surveys and studies of professional, public and private organizations, used in establishing the total compensation structure including direct labor and fringe benefits. If an offeror fails to submit the required plan and requested supporting information, the offeror's proposal will be considered to be inadequate, unresponsive, and will be excluded from consideration.

4. Offerors shall include a copy of their published price list or market pricing along with their price proposal. Electronic spreadsheet files must be sent in Microsoft Excel 2007 format that includes all formulas, macro, computations, or equations used to compute the proposed amounts.

Print image files or files containing only values are not acceptable. Supporting narrative shall be provided in Microsoft Word 2007 format or later.