SOLICITATION NOTICE
U -- IDIQ Multiple Award Indefinite Quantity Contract for eLearning Development Services - Atch 4 - eLearning Model - Atch 1 - SF 1449 - Atch 5 - Price Scenario - Atch 3 - Past Performance Evaluation Offeror's Reference - Atch 2 - SOW eLearning 6 Aug 2010
- Notice Date
- 8/6/2010
- Notice Type
- Combined Synopsis/Solicitation
- NAICS
- 611430
— Professional and Management Development Training
- Contracting Office
- Other Defense Agencies, Virginia Contracting Activity, Virginia Contracting Activity (ZD50), 200 MacDill Boulevard, Post Office Box 46563, Washington, District of Columbia, 20035-6563
- ZIP Code
- 20035-6563
- Solicitation Number
- HHM402-10-R-0094
- Archive Date
- 9/28/2010
- Point of Contact
- Michael, Phone: 2022312827, NEHEMIAH PRYOR, Phone: 2022312670
- E-Mail Address
-
michael.worthington@dia.mil, nehemiah.pryor@dia.mil
(michael.worthington@dia.mil, nehemiah.pryor@dia.mil)
- Small Business Set-Aside
- Total Small Business
- Description
- Statement of Work for eLearning Development Services Past Performance Evaluation Offeror's Reference Questionaire (submit to your references) Price Scenario for HCL eLearning - Hypothetical scenario to provide assist in cost estimates Standard Form 1449 E-Learning Development Model (Milestones/Deliverables Reviewed) Notice of intent for Multiple Award Indefinite Quantity Contract for eLearning Development Services. The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) located at the Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling. The government reserves the right to make make multiple awards resulting from this synopsis/solicitation. IMPORTANT: PLEASE READ IN ITS ENTIRETY! The attached SOW outlines services that are required on an Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) basis. All work that is performed under the contract shall be defined in Task Orders. Task Orders will include: type of order FFP, LOE a task description; the desired labor categories and man-hour estimates; a list of materials; the technical data that is associated with the specific task; appropriate milestone/schedule dates; required travel; and a list of deliverables that will result from the task. This Statement of Work (SOW) establishes the general guidelines and expectations for the contract assistance required to analyze, design, and develop eLearning. For the purposes of this SOW and Task Orders issued under it, HCL-1 defines eLearning as training delivered on a computer (CD-ROM, Internet, Intranet) that may be self-paced or instructor-led and may include asynchronous and synchronous communication formats. Contractor support shall include, but not be limited to, eLearning design and development services such as: •· Creating a design plan •· Storyboarding •· Programming •· Developing multimedia (graphics, animation, audio and video) •· Creating knowledge checks and Kirkpatrick Level 2-type assessments •· Creating instructor and student materials for instructor-led synchronous eLearning courses •· Creating a prototype •· Participating in a pilot of a synchronous eLearning course Below is a sample list of subjects/projects for eLearning courses that may require development at the task order level. Each eLearning course could be a separate task order or several related courses may be grouped together under one task order. Pending Projects may include: •- Soft skill eLearning courses •o Senior Leadership Appraisal •o Supervisor Reservist Awareness Training - Tool/Application eLearning courses •o Integrated Defense Source Registration System (IDSRS) - Analytic skills eLearning courses •o Introduction to Collection Management •o Introduction to Adaptive Planning •o Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) courses This is a solicitation for commercial items prepared in accordance with the format in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 12 Streamlined Procedures for Evaluation and Solicitation for Commercial items. This announcement constitutes the only solicitation; proposals that are being requested. The anticipated date for award on or about November 09, 2010. This is a 100% small business set-aside. The associated North American Classification System (NAICS) code is 611420 and/or 611430 (both are acceptable) and the small business size standard is $7.0M. Vendors that submit proposals in response to this synopsis are required to have been in business for three years or longer. A security clearance is not required, it's desirable. Vendors that submit proposals who do not meet this requirement will be disqualified and eliminated from competition. The vendor must have the financial resources or the ability to establish lines of credit that will allow the company to fulfill DIA eLearning requirements. Offerors must include a completed copy of the provision at 52.212-3, Offeror Representations and Certifications-Commercial Items, with its offer. Offerors shall provide Taxpayer Identification Number, as well as, Data Universal Numbering System no. with its proposal. Vendors are not required to have a General Services Administration (GSA) Federal Supply Schedule contract in order to submit a proposal in response to this RFP. All responsible sources may submit a proposal which will be considered. Teaming is allowed and the DIA encourages teaming with other small businesses. Evaluation - Commercial Criteria will be used to evaluate offerors for awarding the ID/IQ contracts. The Government intends to award ID/IQ contracts resulting from this solicitation to the most responsible offerors whose offers conforming to the solicitation will be the most advantageous, representing the best value to the Government, price and other factors considered. Supplemental Instructions for Evaluation: 1. Basis of Award The Award will be made to responsible offerors whose proposals are determined to be the best overall value to the Government. The evaluation shall be conducted in accordance with the criteria stated below. The Government may award a contract on the basis of initial offers received, without discussions. Therefore, each initial offer will include the offeror's best terms from a personnel and technical standpoint. The Government intends to make multiple awards, indefinite deliverable indefinite quantity contract as a result of this solicitation, but reserves the right to make no award. Task Orders: All ID/IQ task orders are generally competed among the awarded ID/IQ vendors using acquisition procedures established with each Task Order (Best Value and/or Lowest Price Technical Acceptable (LPTA) solely within the discretion of the Government). Note: Cover pages will not count against the page limitation: 2. Evaluation Criteria In selecting the best overall value, the following criteria will be evaluated: •— Technical Capability/Management Approach •— Past and Present Performance •— Cost/Price The offeror's response will be evaluated utilizing the factors described below. Each offeror should consider these factors when preparing proposals. The rating for each evaluation factor will be based on the Government's determination of the degree to which each response satisfies the requirements of each factor. 3. Description of Criteria a. Criteria 1/Vol I - Technical Capability/Management Approach The offeror's proposal shall, as a minimum, present its strategy, approach, and realistic plan to accomplish the tasks that are associated with each section of the Statement of Work. Technical capability includes the following sub-factors which are equally weighted: Sub-factor 1: Technical Capability/Management Approach Offeror's relevant corporate expertise and experience to accomplish the deliverables described in the Statement of Work. Offeror's proposal shall describe how they have previously accomplished relevant work that is similar to the requirements in the SOW and provide a company overview. The offeror's proposal shall demonstrate a clear understanding of the tasks associated with the SOW and provide evidence of comprehension by showing how these tasks will be accomplished. Also, the offeror shall address the responsibilities of the trained and qualified key personnel (Contract Program Manager) and describe how they intend to provide Program Management support for the work described in the SOW. The offeror shall describe their quality assurance process for eLearning development. Technical is more important than Past and Present Performance and more important than Cost. Provide no more than four (6) pages total to describe the technical approach to performing related work. Sub-factor 2: Staffing Plan The offeror's proposal shall describe the composition of the team, their status (currently on staff, contingency hire, sub-contractor, independent consultant, or other), rationale for the team's composition, the potential for those individuals not being available, and measures that will be instituted to mitigate the risk. Provide details on any company policies or staffing issues that may impact the company's ability to effectively provide the necessary support. Provide the total number of employees available to perform the work. Provide no more than two (2) pages to describe the staffing approach to include the staffing plan. Sub-factor 3: Resumes The offeror shall provide resumes for personnel with sufficient information that reflects education and experience as well as any other information that is relative to the performance of this effort. Resumes shall include a narrative discussion of individuals' qualifications and indicate the type and level of security clearance. Formal education shall be documented as follows - Degree (or certificate), Major/Subject, Institution, Location (City, State), and Date of Graduation (may list expected (with anticipated date) if less than six months). Individual college courses or institutions attended but not graduated from shall not be annotated in resumes. When documenting military experience, ensure that rank, Branch of Service, and occupational codes such as the Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) or equivalent is included. Resumes are a non-rated criteria. Resumes: Limited to (2) two pages for suggested labor category (See SF 1449) and limited to 15 resumes. The resume shall NOT count against the page limit. N0TE: Vendors may propose their own suggested labor category that will perform to the SOW. b. Criteria 2/Vol II - Past/present Performance The offeror's proposal shall demonstrate depth of expertise, as demonstrated through educational credentials and years of practical experience in adult learning theory, web interaction design and development, and graphic design and development. In evaluating past/present performance on previous contracts, the Government may contact some or all of the references provided by the offeror and may use and/or contact other sources of information. The offeror shall provide 3 to five (5) points of contact (POC) to accommodate the evaluation of past performance, to include the name, phone number, contract number (if appropriate) and a brief description of the POC's position/role. Attached is "Past Performance Questionnaire" to provide to points-of-contact and/or references. Please complete and submit with proposal. The past performance information will be used to evaluate the following sub-factors: Sub-factor 1: Recent and Relevancy of the Past and Present Performance (3years) The Government will strongly consider the relevant experience of the offeror's past performance. For each project referenced, provide the date of contract award, date of completion, type of contract, total contract value, number of hours of eLearning developed under the contract (if applicable), and the type of course content (for example, leadership, analysis, team building). An offeror with no record of relevant past performance will be considered a neutral rating for past performance. The Offeror must complete a "Technical Support Past Performance Evaluation Offeror's Reference Questionnaire" to submit with proposal. (Attach 3) Past and Present Performance is less important than Technical and more important than Cost However, DIA will accept and recommends providing up to 10 references to select and verify responses. It is strongly encouraged that you proactively contact your references to request that they promptly respond to inquiries for past performance. Any vendor not receiving a past performance evaluation may result in a "neutral" rating under the experience and past performance evaluation factor. Again, the offeror shall provide 3 to five (5) points of contact (POC) to accommodate the evaluation of past performance, to include the name, phone number, contract number (if appropriate) and a brief description of the POC's position/role. The DIA will evaluate the Offeror's past performance in successfully fulfilling requirements that are relevant or similar to the requirements in this RFP. To accomplish this, DIA will review the results of Past Performance Evaluation to determine acceptability under this factor. Where appropriate, offerors may be given an opportunity at the discretion of the government to explain both information concerning the relevancy of the information on past performance provided and any negative past performance information to which the Offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. (Note: The DIA reserves the right to consider any other related information which may come to the attention of the DIA regarding the Offeror's past performance without discussions.) The Offeror is required to submit references from a minimum of 3 and a max of 5 current (past is acceptable) customers with whom the offeror has had an established relationship for over one year from date of this solicitation notice and have had sales relevant to NAICS 611420 and/or 611430 in excess of $500,000 (cumulative of all sales) for the year. Offerors may include sales other than from the federal government community. Upon government's request Offeror shall provide documentation to substantiate sales such as purchase orders, sale invoices, packaging slips, etc. The offeror shall submit current customer contact information to include: Name of customer, address, phone number, and email address. The DIA may verify the sales information that is submitted after the initial review of proposal. Provide no more than two (2) pages each for each past performance reference (10 total pages). C. Criteria 3/ Vol III - Cost and Price The Government will evaluate the reasonableness of the overall total price. An offeror's proposed price will be determined by adding the proposed amount of skill mix to labor hours and other direct costs. By signing the SF 1449, the offeror certifies that each price stated for Labor, Other Direct Costs, includes an appropriate apportionment of all applicable costs, direct and indirect such as overhead, General and Administrative (G&A), Material Handling and profit (on labor and other direct costs only). Labor categories shown are suggestive; offeror may propose their own suggested labor category that will perform to the SOW criteria. Each proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the Government considers the labor categories, hours, and rates to be reasonable and compatible within the score of effort. The Government will evaluate price reasonableness in relation to commercial or market price lists, IGCE, or any other information used as a basis for comparison. In addition, to assist in cost comparison Offerors should complete "Price Scenario" (Attach 5). Provide no more than two (2) pages (broken-out on separate pages from the other criteria/Volume - i.e. excel spread sheet). 4. Cost and Price The purpose of the price evaluation is to determine if the price proposed is realistic for the work to be performed, reflects a clear understanding of the requirements, and is consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the offeror's proposal. Again offerors should complete the "Price Scenario" (Attach 5). This factor will not receive a rating. The proposed cost will be evaluated for cost reasonableness. Cost reasonableness pertains to the offeror's ability to project costs which are accurate reasonable and indicate that the offeror understands the nature of the work to be performed. A cost priced analysis also determines if the proposed cost conforms to the offeror's Technical Volume. As a result of its cost reasonableness the Government may adjust, upward or downward, proposed cost considered unreasonable or unrealistic. Cost is less important than Technical, Past and Present Performance. 5. Proposal Format and Content Paper, Page Size and Format (Times New Roman 10/12 font). Page size shall be 8.5 x 11 inches. Pages shall be single-spaced. Pages shall be numbered sequentially by section. Illustration and tables: Tables, charts, graphs, diagrams and figures shall be used wherever practical to depict organizations, systems and layout, implementation schedules, plans, etc. These displays shall be uncomplicated, legible and shall not exceed 8.5 x 11 inches. Elaborate brochures or documentation, binding, detailed artwork, or other embellishments are not required and neither are they desired. Number of Copies/Page Limits: The offeror shall prepare the proposal as set forth in the Proposal Organization Table (see below). The titles and contents of the sections shall be as defined in the table, all o f which shall be within the required page limits and with the number of copies specified. Pages exceeding this page limitation set forth will not be read or evaluated and will be removed from the proposal. When submitting proposals, cost must be separated from all other requested volumes of the proposal. The offerors must submit one (1) original proposal, one (1) copy and (1) electronic proposals on CD-ROM (without password) per the "Instructions to Submit". Proposal Organization Table below: Title Pages Original plus # of copies Due Dates Volume I CRITERIA 1 Technical Capability Management Approach (includes Resumes) 08 pages (1) original and (1 Copy) 13 Sept 2010 Volume II CRITERIA 2 Past/present Performance 10 pages (1) original and (1 Copy) 13 Sept 2010 Volume III CRITERIA 3 Cost and Price 02 pages (1) original and (1 Copy) 13 Sept 2010 Total Max pages 20 pages Note: Cover page and Resumes will not count against the page limitation. Technical Capability/Management Approach Evaluation Rating Scale During evaluation, the Government will assign each proposal one of the following technical capability assessment ratings and risk rating: Rating Description Excellent To receive this rating, proposed offer demonstrates a thorough understanding of the requirements; offers one or more significant advantages not offset by disadvantages. The offferor has a very high probability of success in completing the requirements. All factors/sub factors must have received a rating of Excellent/Low Risk. Good To receive this rating, proposed offer demonstrates a good understanding of the requirements; offers one or more advantages not offset by disadvantages. The Offeror has a high probability of success in completing the requirements. All factors/sub factors must have received a rating of Good/Moderate Risk. Satisfactory To receive this rating, proposed offer demonstrates an acceptable understanding of the requirements; any advantages are offset by disadvantages. The Offeror has a moderate probability of success in completing the requirements. All factors/sub factors must have received a rating of Satisfactory/Moderate Risk. Unsatisfactory To receive this rating, proposed major errors, omissions, or deficiencies or an unacceptably high degree of risk in meeting the Governments requirements; and the conditions can not be corrected without a major rewrite or revision of the proposal. Risk Ratings High Performance Risk Likely to cause significant disruption to schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Risk may be unacceptable even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring. Moderate Performance Risk Can potentially cause some disruption to schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will probably be able to overcome difficulties. Low Performance Risk Has little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will probably be able to overcome difficulties. Past Performance Evaluation Rating Scale Rating Description E = Exceptional Based on the offeror's performance record, essentially no doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. V = Very Good Based on the offeror's performance record, little doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. S = Satisfactory Based on the offeror's performance record, some doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. M = Marginal Based on the offeror's performance record, substantial doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. U = Unsatisfactory Based on the offeror's performance record, extreme doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. N - Neutral Unable to provide a score. No performance record identifiable. Point-of-Contact NOTE: The contracting officer and the contracting specialist are the points-of-contact for this solicitation. Any attempt to contact the Program Management Office or others that are affiliated with this solicitation will be grounds for dismissal from the competition. Instructions to submit Offerors shall mail one (1) media proposals on CD-ROM without password, with one (1) paper copy marked "original" and (1) additional copy to: Defense Intelligence Agency ATTN: DIAC, Mr. Worthington, Bldg 6000, AE-2B, RM: N287f, 200 MacDill Blvd, Washington D.C. 20340. Marked For: use the "solicitation number" NO E-MAIL ACCEPTED for proposals. If media CD-ROM and paper copies conflict-paper copies will prevail: NO HAND-DELIVERY ACCEPTED. The receipt date and time for proposals is 2:30 p.m. EST, September 13, 2010. All questions for this solicitation must be submitted by email to: Michael.worthington@dia.mil no-later than 2:30PM EST, August 23, 2010. Submitted questions will be answered with an amendment to this synopsis/solicitation. Updates to this synopsis/solicitation will be posted on FedBizOpps. The secondary point of contact is: Nehemiah Pryor, email: Nehemiah.Pryor@dia.mil, phone: 202-231-2670. Contract award is anticipated on or about November 09, 2010. This solicitation shall not be construed as a commitment of any kind.
- Web Link
-
FBO.gov Permalink
(https://www.fbo.gov/spg/ODA/DIA/ZD50/HHM402-10-R-0094/listing.html)
- Place of Performance
- Address: at contractor's site, United States
- Record
- SN02231731-W 20100808/100806235156-2fbd2c9b67ee09e9e76fe23a39f959fe (fbodaily.com)
- Source
-
FedBizOpps Link to This Notice
(may not be valid after Archive Date)
| FSG Index | This Issue's Index | Today's FBO Daily Index Page |