EIS RFP Section M DRAFT

M.1 General Evaluation and Award Considerations

M.1.1 Award Basis

The government intends to make multiple awards for EIS services, but reserves the right to limit the number of awards. Contract(s) will be awarded to responsible offeror(s) that provide the most advantageous proposals to the government, based on a best value evaluation of mandatory EIS services using the tradeoff process in FAR 15.1.

The following non-price factors will be considered:

1) Technical (mandatory and optional described in Section M.2.1)

2) Management (described in Section M.2.2)

3) Past Performance (described in Section M.2.3)

4) Subcontracting (described in M.2.4)

A Price Evaluation will be conducted in accordance with Section M.3.

The relative importance of the evaluation factors is as follows:

· Non-price factors are shown in descending order of importance – Technical Approach, Management Approach, Past Performance and Subcontracting.

· All evaluation factors other than price when combined are approximately equal to price.

Optional services that are offered will be evaluated for award as described in Sections M.4 and M.5, but will not impact the source selection decision.

M.1.1.1 Eligibility for Award

Proposals shall be prepared in accordance with the instructions in Section L. For an offer to be eligible for award the offeror shall:

1. Agree to all terms and conditions of the solicitation

2. Be determined responsible in accordance with FAR 9.1

3. Submit pricing that is determined fair and reasonable

4. Submit an acceptable proposal

Notwithstanding FAR provision 52.215-1 Alternate 1, the government reserves the right to award based on initial offers.

M.1.1.2 Proposal Evaluation

Proposals shall be evaluated in accordance with the procedures set forth in FAR 15.3, the provisions contained throughout this section, and the following rules:

1. Conformance Review. Proposals shall be reviewed to verify conformance with Section L Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Offerors. Failure to follow the instructions may result in the offeror’s proposal being removed from further consideration.

2. Compliance Review. Proposals shall be reviewed to verify compliance with the requirements of the solicitation. Failure to comply with the RFP requirements may result in the offeror’s proposal being removed from further consideration.

3. Technical and Price. Proposals will be reviewed and evaluated. Technical proposals (i.e., all non-price factors) will be evaluated in accordance with the factors and criteria in Section M.2. Price proposals will be evaluated according to Section M.3.

4. Competitive Range Determination. In accordance with FAR 15.306(c)(2), the contracting officer may determine that the number of most highly rated proposals that might otherwise be included 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 (10 U.S.C. 2305(b)(4) and 41 U.S.C. 3703).

5. Unrealistic Proposals. Proposals that are unrealistic in terms of technical and management commitment or unrealistically low in price will be deemed reflective of an inherent lack of management and technical competence or indicative of failure to comprehend the complexity and risk of the contract requirements. This may result in the offeror’s proposal being removed from further consideration.

6. Fraudulent Statements or Information: If the evaluation team discovers any misleading, falsified, and/or fraudulent statements or information in the offeror’s proposal, the offeror shall be eliminated from further consideration for award. Falsification of any proposal submission, documents, or statements may subject the offeror to civil or criminal prosecution under Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

M.1.2 Evaluation Support

The offeror is hereby notified that GSA intends to use outside contractors to assist in the evaluation of proposals. Those contractors will have access to any and all information contained in the offerors’ proposals and will be subject to appropriate conflict of interest, standards of conduct, and confidentiality restrictions. The current prime support contractor is Converge Networks Corporation (CNC).

M.2 Technical Evaluation of Non-price Factors

The offeror’s approach to mandatory services will be evaluated with respect to four non-price factors:

1) Technical Approach

2) Management Approach

3) Past Performance

4) Subcontracting

These factors are described below.

M.2.1 Technical Approach (Section C Network Architecture and EIS Services)

The technical approach will be evaluated by assigning an adjectival rating for the offeror’s proposed architecture and for each proposed mandatory service. Proposed optional services will receive a rating of either Acceptable or Unacceptable. The offeror’s proposed architecture and services will be evaluated based on the following:

1) Understanding. The offeror’s proposed architecture and services meet EIS service requirements.

2) Quality of Services. The offeror’s proposed approach is clearly articulated, sound, and demonstrates the capability to deliver, compliant, scalable, reliable, and resilient EIS services.

3) Service Coverage. The offeror’s proposed coverage meets the minimum CBSA requirements (see Section C.1.3). The offeror will be rated more highly for proposing coverage (as contained in the Traffic Model) that exceeds the minimum requirements.

4) Security. The offeror’s proposed architecture and services comply with security specifications as identified in:

a) Service-specific requirements

b) General requirements described in Section C.1.8.7 (including MTIPS as described in Section C.2.8.4, as applicable)

c) External traffic routing requirements described in Section C.1.8.8, sub-paragraph 3, which include:

i. The methodology for identifying the offeror's participating agency traffic for each affected service.

ii. Anticipated technical approach, for each affected service, to redirect all participating agency Internet, Extranet, and inter-agency traffic to DHS EINSTEIN Enclaves, receive processed traffic from GFP within the DHS EINSTEIN Enclave, and deliver traffic to its final destination.

iii. The technical approach to notify DHS should any non-participating agency traffic (IPv4, IPv6, etc.) be redirected through DHS EINSTEIN Enclaves.

iv. Control mechanisms the offeror will use to ensure that the identification and redirection of participating agency traffic is not inadvertently or maliciously bypassable.

v. Sensing and control mechanisms the offeror will use to ensure the redirection of traffic is failsafe (no disruption of participating agency services) should failures occur with DHS GFP.

vi. The location of the offeror's existing or planned ANSI/TIA-942 and ICD 705 certified facilities that can serve as DHS EINSTEIN Enclaves capable of hosting DHS GFP at or near appropriate traffic-access locations.

vii. Availability of TS/SCI-cleared personnel for "smart-hands" service of DHS supplied equipment.

viii. Instrumentation to measure transport SLA KPIs (as if traffic passes through loopbacks in EINSTEIN Enclaves with no impact within DHS GFP being counted against the offeror’s performance).

d) Risk Management Framework Plans will be evaluated for compliance (acceptable/unacceptable) with the requirements of the applicable sections.

M.2.2 Management Approach (Section G: Contract Administration Data, Section E: Inspection and Acceptance and Section J.2: Contractor Data Interaction Plan)

The Management Approach will be evaluated by assigning an adjectival rating, to assess the degree to which it reflects an efficient, feasible and practical level of understanding of the support systems from an operations and management perspective.

The management approach will be evaluated on the following:

1. Quality of Systems. Degree to which the offeror’s approach demonstrates the capability to provide user-friendly, compliant and efficient support systems, including: Ordering, Billing, Business Support Systems, Customer Support Office and Technical Support, Trouble Ticket Management, Inventory Management, Service Level Management, and Training.

2. Customer Access. Degree to which the offeror presents the capability to provide EIS customers with web-based access to the support systems.

3. Ability. Degree to which the offeror’s proposed Program Management Plan (Section G.9.4) demonstrates a thorough understanding of the requirements, to include a specific and effective approach to the Contractor Data Interaction Plan (see Section J.2).

The following documents shall be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis for the requirements of the applicable sections cited below:

1. The SCRM Plan (Section G.6.3)

2. The Draft BSS Verification Test Plan (Section E.2.1)

3. The EIS Services Verification Test Plan (Section E.2.2)

4. The Climate Risk Management Plan (Section G.12.1)

5. The Financial Status Report (Sample) (Section G.9.5)

6. The BSS Risk Management Framework Plan (Section G.5.6)

7. The NS/EP Functional Requirements Implementation Plan (Sections G.11.1 – G.11.3)

M.2.3 Past Performance

The offeror will be evaluated with respect to its past performance of projects similar in size and scope to any of the four (4) mandatory services identified in Section C.1.2.

Past performance of optional services will not be evaluated.

This assessment will first consider the five (5) most recent relevant ratings available in the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) that are of similar size and scope to any of the four mandatory services. If five such ratings are not available in PPIRS, then the government shall use the information received from the offeror. It is presumed that offerors have previously had an opportunity to respond to adverse past performance for ratings that were entered in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) and subsequently loaded into PPIRS; therefore, offerors will not be provided another opportunity to address adverse past performance if their PPIRS ratings are used as part of the evaluation.

Past performance will be evaluated by assigning an adjectival rating based on:

1. Relevant History. Degree to which the offeror demonstrates relevant history on projects and contracts of similar size and scope to any of the four mandatory services.

2. Customer Satisfaction. Level of customer satisfaction with delivering services on projects and contracts of similar size and scope to any of the four mandatory services.

With regard to the government’s evaluation of past performance, offerors should note that in accordance with FAR 15.305 (2)(iv):

“In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.”

Past performance of subcontractors will not be accepted unless under a small business teaming arrangement as defined in Section L.13. Past performance of small business teaming arrangements or contractor team arrangements as defined by FAR 9.601 (1) is acceptable. Subcontractors under contractor team arrangements as defined by FAR 9.601 (2) shall not be accepted.

M.2.4 Subcontracting

The large business offeror will be evaluated on its Individual Subcontracting Plan, Subcontracting Participation included in the Subcontracting Plan and Subcontracting History. This assessment will reflect the consideration of all relevant information readily available to the government, and will include information received from the offeror.

1. Individual Subcontracting Plan and Subcontracting Participation:

a) Compliance (Acceptable/Unacceptable) The offeror’s subcontracting plan complies with the requirements of FAR Clause 52.219-9, FAR Subpart 19.704, and GSAM Provisions 552.219-72 and 552.219-73.

b) Participation (Adjectival Rating). Degree to which the offeror proposes a sound approach and demonstrates a commitment to meet the government’s target goals for participation of small business, veteran-owned small business, service-disabled veteran-owned small business, HUBZone small business, small disadvantaged business, and women-owned small business concerns.

The offeror is encouraged to propose goals that exceed the EIS subcontracting goals.

2. Subcontracting History (Adjectival Rating):

The large business offeror will be evaluated on the degree to which it attained applicable goals for small business participation in the performance of previous contracts. This assessment will first consider the five (5) most recent relevant ratings available in the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS). If five such ratings are not available in PPIRS, then the government shall use the information included in eSRS.

If the offeror is a small business concern, it shall receive the highest score possible for the subcontracting evaluation factors identified above.

Note: If no subcontracting past performance information is available with regard to meeting subcontracting goals/dollars, the offeror will receive a “Neutral” rating.

M.3 Price Evaluation

Price reasonableness will be determined by adequate price competition. In the case of optional services, where adequate price competition may not be available, GSA will use the price evaluation principles in FAR 15.4, including comparison of prices to the IGCE.

The price evaluation will include the following:

1. A determination of whether the price response submitted by the offeror demonstrates understanding of the pricing requirements and concepts (see Section L.34.1).

2. Mandatory services that are based on the minimum geographic coverage for locations and mandatory services in the Traffic Model (i.e., all mandatory services for at least 25 of the top 100 CBSAs).

3. Optional services that are based on coverage of locations by CBSA and mandatory services found acceptable in item 2 above.

4. Optional services that do not depend on CBSA locations (i.e., non CBSA-dependent services).

5. Pricing elements comprised of optional CLINs or optional locations. Both mandatory and optional services may include such pricing elements.

Sections M.3.1 through M.3.4 describe evaluation of items 2-4 above. Sections M.3.5 and M.3.6 describe the evaluation of item 5. Section M.4 provides additional evaluation considerations for the optional services listed in items 3, 4, and 5.

Section M.3.7 describes additional price analysis.

Section M.3.8 describes the Traffic and Forecast Sensitivity Evaluation.

The price evaluation excludes evaluation of ICB CLINs.

M.3.1 Price Evaluation Process

Mandatory services are evaluated first and optional services second using the following seven-step process:

· Steps 1 through 3 apply to mandatory services for all CBSAs proposed

· Steps 4 and 5 apply to CBSA-dependent optional services

· Steps 6 and 7 apply to non-CBSA dependent optional services

Table M.3.2 provides details for the seven-step price evaluation process.

M.3.2 Price Evaluation Process Table

Mandatory Services Price Evaluation	For Each CBSA Proposed by Offeror, in Descending CBSA Order by Bandwidth per Table J.1.4.1	Pass Criteria
Step 1: Minimum CBSA compliance qualification	· Verify that the offeror has offered prices for all mandatory services for at least 25 of the top 100 CBSAs	If offeror meets the Step 1 CBSA requirement, the evaluation will proceed to Step 2
Step 2: Detailed evaluation of CBSA dependent services	· Verify that offeror has priced all mandatory pricing elements for all mandatory services · Evaluate CBSA prices as described in Section M.3.3 · Perform additional analysis as described in M.3.7 and M.3.8 · Determine whether prices are found fair and reasonable for each CBSA	If prices are found fair and reasonable for at least 25 of the top 100 CBSAs the evaluation will proceed to Step 3
Step 3: Determine potential EIS awardees and all potential CBSAs that could be awarded	· Price Evaluation for the contract award decisions will be based solely on evaluation of mandatory services and minimum CBSA coverage · Identify offerors that have completed Steps 1-2 successfully. These offerors are candidates for EIS contract awards for all CBSAs found fair and reasonable including the CBSAs beyond the minimum 25 of the top 100.	Only the proposals that have successfully completed steps 1-3 may proceed to Step 4 for evaluation of optional services
Optional Services Price Evaluation	For Optional CBSA-dependent Services for each CBSA Proposed by Offeror and found fair and reasonable in Step 2 above	Pass Criteria
Step 4: Detailed evaluation of optional CBSA- dependent services	· For each optional service, verify that the offeror has priced all mandatory pricing elements · Evaluate CBSA prices as described in Section M.3.4 · Perform additional analysis as described in M.3.7 and M.3.8 · Determine whether prices are found fair and reasonable for this CBSA	If all mandatory pricing elements are found fair and reasonable for the optional CBSA-dependent service, proceed to Step 5.
Step 5: Determine award candidates	· Any optional CBSA-dependent services that have completed Step 4 successfully are candidates for award of those services.	None.
Optional Services Price Evaluation	For All Optional Non-CBSA Dependent Services	Pass Criteria
Step 6: Detailed evaluation of optional non-CBSA dependent services	· For each optional non-CBSA dependent service, verify that offeror has correctly priced all mandatory pricing elements · Perform price evaluation as described in Section M.3.5 · Perform additional analysis as described in M.3.7 and M.3.8 · Determine whether prices are found fair and reasonable for these services	If all mandatory pricing elements are found fair and reasonable for the optional non-CBSA dependent service, proceed to Step 7.
Step 7: Determine potential awards	· Any optional non-CBSA dependent services that have successfully completed Step 6 may be awarded.	None.

M.3.3 Evaluation of Mandatory Services

Mandatory services are identified in Table B.1.2.1.1. A price evaluation will be performed on each CBSA offered in accordance with the procedure and sequence shown above in Table M.3.2 Step 2. The government will evaluate the top 100 CBSAs in the sequence provided in Table J.1.4.1 to determine contract award eligibility. Once prices for the 25 CBSAs needed to meet the minimum requirement have been deemed fair and reasonable, all additional CBSAs proposed will be evaluated.

All mandatory services for each CBSA proposed by the offeror will be evaluated by calculating the Total Evaluated CBSA Price (TECP), which is the sum over the base contract period of all the mandatory service prices in that CBSA applied to the Traffic Model. The base contract period and the option periods are identified in Section H.1.

Note: for Voice Service the TECP will be based on the Voice Service (Circuit Switched or IP) designated by the offeror to be evaluated with the set of mandatory services. The non-designated service may be submitted as an optional service for evaluation as described in Table M.3.2 and Section M.4.

M.3.4 Evaluation of Optional CBSA Dependent Services

Optional CBSA-dependent services are identified in Table B.1.2.1.1.

Consistent with the evaluation process in Table M.3.2, each optional CBSA-dependent service offered will be evaluated by applying the offered prices for that service to any entries in the Traffic Model for that CBSA for the base contract period (see Section H.1).

M.3.5 Evaluation of Optional Non-CBSA Dependent Services

Optional non-CBSA dependent services are identified in Table B.1.2.1.1.

Consistent with the evaluation process in Table M.3.2, each optional non-CBSA dependent service offered will be evaluated by applying the offered prices to any entries in the Traffic Model for the base contract period (see Section H.1).

M.3.6 Evaluation of Optional CLINs and Optional Locations

Both mandatory and optional services as defined in Table B.1.2.1.1 may include optional pricing elements comprised of optional CLINs and/or optional locations. Optional locations refer to locations outside of CBSAs, which may be OCONUS or non-domestic. The offeror may propose optional services and optional locations by including them in the price submissions as specified in Section L.34.

Consistent with the evaluation process in Table M.3.2, such optional price elements will be evaluated by applying the offered prices to the appropriate entries in the Traffic Model for the base contract period for the optional price element. The analyses described in Sections M.3.7 and M.3.8 may also be performed.

M.3.7 Additional Price Analysis

To ensure fair, reasonable, and balanced prices, the government will perform a price analysis in accordance with FAR Part 15.4 for mandatory and optional services. All mandatory and optional services and features, catalogs discount classes, access types, bandwidths, optional pricing elements described in Section M.3.6, and other priced items are subject to price analysis, whether or not they are included in the government’s Traffic Model.

M.3.8 Traffic and Forecast Sensitivity Evaluation

The Traffic Model represents the government’s best effort to project service usage for the services in this RFP based on historical data, current trends, agency-supplied information and other information. The Traffic Model does not represent a projection of future order levels, but will allow the government to evaluate the risk posed by varying levels of projected traffic. The degree to which the sensitivity analysis reveals unexpected price behavior resulting from traffic variations will determine the level of perceived risk in the offeror’s pricing structure.

M.4 Optional Services Acceptance

The government may, at its discretion, accept any or all CBSA-dependent or non-CBSA dependent optional services proposed by an offeror based on:

1. Compliance with Section C.2 Technical Requirements (per Section M.2.1)

2. Compliance with Section G Contract Administration Data (per Section M.2.2)

3. Quality of response (per Sections L.29, L.30 and L.34)

4. Price evaluation (per Section M.3)

M.5 Acceptance of Catalogs

The government may, at its discretion, accept any or all catalogs proposed by an offeror based on the analyses described in this section.

Evaluation of catalog offerings will include an evaluation of catalog submissions, application of any Traffic Model catalog items, and an evaluation of the proposed discount classes and levels.

Evaluation of the catalog submissions for each proposed catalog will include:

1. Verification that catalog tables are properly populated

2. Verification that the specification and price tables contain complete, accurate and defensible information

3. Verification that Official List Prices (OLPs) and OLP trade names are accurate

4. Verification that discount classes are logically structured

At its option, the government may evaluate the entire population of catalog items offered, or, where the population of catalog items is large, may evaluate a random sample of catalog items by discount class at a confidence level of 95%.

The proposed discount classes will be evaluated to determine whether they result in fair, reasonable and balanced prices for each proposed catalog item.

M.6 Evaluation of Option Year Pricing

In accordance with FAR Subpart 17.206(a), the government is required to evaluate offers for any option periods contained in a solicitation when it has been determined prior to soliciting offers that the government is likely to exercise the options. In order to comply with this requirement, the government will calculate option period pricing by applying a price escalation factor to each offeror’s base period pricing. Prices will be calculated for option periods 1 and 2, and the potential six month option included in Clause 52.217-8 Option to Extend Services. The escalation factor will be applied to all mandatory and optional services prices and will be the same for all offerors. The option period prices calculated by the government will only be used for evaluation purposes. Actual pricing (i.e., post award) for the option periods will be done in accordance with Clause H.19.