SOLICITATION NOTICE
D -- Automation, Testing and Certification - Package #1
- Notice Date
- 8/26/2011
- Notice Type
- Combined Synopsis/Solicitation
- NAICS
- 541511
— Custom Computer Programming Services
- Contracting Office
- Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency, Acquisition Management Division, Contracts Operations Branch, 1280 Maryland Avenue, SW, Portals Bldg., Room 508A, Washington, District of Columbia, 20250-0567
- ZIP Code
- 20250-0567
- Solicitation Number
- AG-3151-S-11-0041
- Archive Date
- 9/23/2011
- Point of Contact
- Jeffrey McRae, Phone: 2026904030, Billy Rowland, Phone: 202 720 9356
- E-Mail Address
-
Jeffrey.Mcrae@wdc.usda.gov, billy.rowland@wdc.usda.gov
(Jeffrey.Mcrae@wdc.usda.gov, billy.rowland@wdc.usda.gov)
- Small Business Set-Aside
- Total Small Business
- Description
- Solicitation Package AG-3151-S-11-0041 for Automation, Testing and Certification Requirement This is a combined synopsis/solicitation for commercial items (services) prepared in accordance with the format in Subpart 12.6, as supplemented with additional information included in this notice and as such the use of the Standard Form 1449 is not required. This announcement constitutes the only solicitation; proposals are being requested and a written solicitation will not be issued. Request for Proposals (RFP) AG-3151-S-11-0041 communicates the Government's requirement to prospective contractors and solicits proposals for a competitive Small Business Set-Aside acquisition as follows: This acquisition is a competitive effort in accordance with FAR Part 19.5 Set-Aside for Small Business, NAICS: 541511, Size Standard: $25.00 The objective of this requirement is to provide Contractor support for software testing including automation of software applications utilized by the Farm Service Agency The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be the best value to the Government, price and other factors considered. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers: The Government will award to the Offeror whose proposal offers the best value in terms of Technical Approach, Ability to Succeed and Cost as prescribed in this solicitation. Within the best value continuum, the Government will employ a tradeoff analysis of cost or price and non-cost factors (FAR 15.101-1) in evaluating the proposals submitted. Proposals will be assessed for how well the Offeror's proposal meets the solicitation requirements and the risks associated with the Offeror's approach. Determining how well the Offeror's proposal meets the solicitation requirements will be accomplished in two steps. First, a determination will be made if the Offeror's proposal meets the solicitation requirements. Next, the discriminators will be identified for the proposals reflecting the unique strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies of each offer. In addition, the Government will examine the impact of each discriminator and assess its relative value to the Government. In order to make a sound source selection decision, the Government needs to understand the ways in which a given proposal is considered technically strong, as well as the ways in which it is weak or deficient. Hence, a catalog of the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies (in terms of the evaluation criteria) facilitates the process of determining which proposal presents the best overall value to the Government. EVALUATION FACTORS AND RATING METHODOLOGY EVALUATION FACTORS The evaluation will be based on a complete assessment of the Offeror's proposal. Proposals shall be evaluated on the following three factors, listed in descending order of importance, where factor 1 is more important than factor 2; factor 2 is more important than factor 3. Factor 1 - Technical Factor 2 - Past Performance Factor 3 - Price The evaluation will not take any information contained in the Executive summary submitted in response to L into consideration in the evaluation of Factors 1, 2, or 3. Technical Volume: The Technical Volume will be evaluated as a measure of merit and the Government's confidence. The Offeror's proposal must address all aspects of the performance work statement, and must provide sufficient information to show that the offeror: • Has a clear understanding of the work to be performed; • Has the technical ability to comply with all aspects of the Performance Work Statement; • Has the resources and capacity to meet all deadlines and requirements, and submit quality work within the deliverables schedule provided; • Has the ability to consistently provide qualified personnel for the requirement. The Technical Volume is subdivided into sub-factors of and each Subfactor proposal response must show: a. Technical Approach - The approach and demonstration their understanding of the Performance Work Statement and required Deliverables. b. Testing - Experience in requirements review and traceability, test plan and test case documentation, functional testing, automated testing, software release documentation. c. Key Personnel and Staffing - Resumes for key personnel and a Staffing Plan including the number of proposed personnel, the labor category and descriptions for each and an organizational chart listing the allocation of staffing to Prime and any Subcontractors. d. Software Expertise - Expertise with Microsoft Office Suite, HP Quality Center (including Quick Test Professional), Rational Test Studio Suite (including Performance Tester/Robot), Java, JavaScript or other scripting languages, XML, HTML, Structured Query Language, DB2, Oracle, MQ Series, Section 508 tools, ESRI ArcGIS Desktop Applications and open source tools such as SoapUI and/or JMeter. e. Project Management - Experience with managing technical resources, reporting project status and process improvements. PMP certification desired. f. Compliance - Experience in documentation and testing for section 508 guidelines, OMB Circular A-123, financial and security compliance. g. Quality Assurance Plan -Sufficient detail to provide evidence that the contractor is meeting the contract requirements satisfactorily. h. Deployment and Implementation Plan Support - Evidence of production implementations (includes operating procedures, turnover documentation, deployment plans etc.) and ability to provide assistance to the Application Support Group. i. Knowledge Transfer - Provide outline plan for knowledge transfer of skills and technologies. Past Performance Volume: The Past Performance Volume will be evaluated as a measure of merit and the Government's confidence. The Past Performance Volume must demonstrate (at least 3 but no more than 5 with offeror being Prime in at least 1 of the references) a solid, proven track record (within the last 5 years), for projects similar in scope and size, with demonstrated results as well as proven past performance in the areas outlined in the Performance Work Statement and required Deliverables. An offeror with proven experience, demonstrated results and positive references from clients will receive a more favorable evaluation. The Offerors Past Performance Volume must provide sufficient information to demonstrate:- a) QUALITY OF PRODUCTS AND SERVICES-Compliance with contract requirements -Accurate reporting Use of appropriate personnel-Technical excellence. b) TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE-Performance milestones & delivery schedules reliably met-Responsive to technical direction-Timely completion, including wrap-up & contract admin.-No liquidated damages c) COST CONTROL-Performance within budget/targeted costs-Current, accurate and complete billings-Actual costs in line with negotiated costs-Cost efficient-No change orders due to poor cost control d) BUSINESS RELATIONS-Effective management-Businesslike communications-Prompt notification of problems-Reasonable, cooperative, flexible, pro-active-Effective small/small disadvantaged business subcontracting The evaluation of past performance is a subjective assessment based on a consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances. The evaluation may consider information from any source(s) deemed necessary by the Contracting Officer. Each reference shall include the customer's name, contract number, dollar value, the location where the services were provided, contact person(s), customer's telephone number, a complete description of the service type, and dates the services were provided. The references may include State or Federal government customers where the offeror, completed within the past 5 years. The Agency reserves the right to use any information or additional references deemed necessary to establish the ability of the offeror to perform the conditions of the contract. Price Volume. Price, while being an important factor, is not in and of itself the determining factor in the selection of the successful Offeror for award of the contract contemplated by this solicitation. Price is not scored/weighted; rather, each Offeror's Price will be evaluated for realism, reasonableness, and completeness of the proposed contract cost. The ultimate importance of the Price Volume will be determined after the Technical Volume and Past Performance Volume merit and confidence in the Offeror's proposal have been established. RATING METHODS A merit rating and a confidence rating will be assigned to both the Technical and Past Performance Volumes. The merit rating and the confidence rating are of equal importance. Merit: The following adjectival ratings will be used to rate the merit portion of the sub-factors, in each Volume, as well as an overall rating for each Volume • Outstanding: Greatly exceeds the minimum performance or capability requirements in a way beneficial to the Government. There are no significant weaknesses. Those aspects of a factor or sub-factor resulting in an "Outstanding" rating may be incorporated into the resulting contract. • Excellent: Exceeds the minimum performance or capability requirements in a way beneficial to the Government. There are no significant weaknesses. Those aspects of a factor or sub-factor resulting in an "Excellent" rating may be incorporated into the resulting contract. • Acceptable: Meets the minimum performance or capability requirements. There may be minor but correctable weaknesses. • Marginal: May meet the performance or capability requirements. There are apparent or moderate weaknesses that are correctable. • Unacceptable: Fails to meet the performance or capability requirements. There are unacceptable weaknesses. Confidence: In assessing confidence in the Technical and Past Performance Volumes, the Government will consider the risks associated with the approaches proposed by the Offeror, as well as the Government's confidence that the Offeror's view of its relationship with the Government will produce behaviors and results necessary to ensure the success of the project. The following confidence ratings will be used to rate the confidence portion of each sub-factor as well as the overall Technical and Past Performance Volume: • High Confidence: Evaluated that virtually no doubt exists that the Offeror will successfully perform the proposed effort. The Offeror's understanding of the project and soundness of approach are such that virtually no Government intervention is expected to be required in achieving the proposed level of performance. • Significant Confidence: Evaluated with a certainty, that the Offeror will successfully perform the proposed effort. The Offeror's understanding of the project and soundness of approach are such that little Government intervention is expected to be required in achieving the proposed level of performance. • Confidence: The Offeror should be able to successfully perform the proposed effort. The Offeror's understanding of the project and soundness of approach are such that some Government intervention is expected to be required to meet the proposed level of performance. • Little Confidence: Substantial doubt exists that the Offeror will successfully perform the proposed effort. The Offeror's understanding of the project and soundness of approach are such that substantial Government intervention is expected to be required to meet the proposed level of performance. • No Confidence: Extreme doubt exists that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort. The Offeror's understanding of the project and soundness of approach are such that, regardless of the degree of Government intervention, successful performance as proposed is doubtful. Price Factor Evaluation Ratings Realism: The Government will evaluate the realism of proposed price by assessing the compatibility of proposed price with proposal scope and effort. For the price to be realistic, it must reflect what it would cost the Offeror to perform the effort, if performed with reasonable economy and efficiency. Cost realism evaluation includes a review of the overall price in the Offeror's proposal to determine: • If price is realistic for the work proposed; • If price reflects a clear understanding of the requirements; and • If price is consistent with the various elements of the Offeror's Technical Proposal. Reasonableness: The Government will evaluate the reasonableness of proposed price and option periods by assessing the acceptability of the Offeror's methodology used in developing the price estimates. For the price to be reasonable, in its nature and amount, it should not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of a competitive business. This represents a compromise between the seller's and the buyer's opinion of what constitutes a fair price. Reasonableness takes into account the context of a given source selection, including current market conditions and other factors that affect the ability of an Offeror to perform the contract requirements. What is reasonable depends upon a variety of considerations and circumstances, including: • Whether it is the type of cost generally recognized as ordinary and necessary for the conduct of the Offeror's business or of the contract performance; • Generally accepted sound business practices, Federal and State laws and regulations, etc.; and • Any significant deviations from the Offeror's established practices. Completeness: Price Proposals shall be evaluated for completeness by assessing the responsiveness of the proposed price by assessing the level of detail the Offeror provided data for all requirements in the SOO, and assessing the traceability of back up detail requested in Section L. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD Unless all offers are rejected, award will be made to the responsible offeror whose offer, conforming to the solicitation, is determined to be the best overall value, price and other factors considered. In determining the best overall response, Technical and Past Performance, when combined, are more important than the price factor. The Government may select for award the offeror whose price is not necessarily the lowest, but whose technical proposal is more advantageous to the Government and warrants the additional cost. Offerors must satisfy the requirements described in the performance criteria, as well as other RFP requirements. Offers that take exception to any performance criteria are unacceptable. Any questions concerning this RFP shall be submitted to the Contracting Officer and Contractor Support Staff via email to: Billy.Rowland@wdc.usda.gov and Jeffrey.Mcrae@wdc.usda.gov and received by 10:00 am Eastern Standard Time (EST) on Monday, August 29, 2011.
- Web Link
-
FBO.gov Permalink
(https://www.fbo.gov/spg/USDA/FSA/MSD/AG-3151-S-11-0041 /listing.html)
- Place of Performance
- Address: 6501 Beacon Drive, Kansas City, Missouri, 64133, United States
- Zip Code: 64133
- Zip Code: 64133
- Record
- SN02551115-W 20110828/110826235227-a914943eab0000afddb03f4417401dca (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 |