NA The purpose of this submission is to provide a copy of the solicitation and contents of the modifications to RFQ14173 for the benifit of those potential offerors who may not be able to veiw the solicitation posted under the GSA Advantage for CR499 and SIN 874. Only Vendors under these two classification can submit a proposal. Solicitation follows: Thursday, May 15, 2003 RFQ ID RFQ14173 (Modification 1) Extending the closing date until 21 May 03 (Modification 2) The purpose of this modification is to rescind the Statement of Work (SOW) in its entirety and replace with (SOW)dated May 8, 2003. (Modification 3) The purpose of this modification is to extend the RFQ from 21 May 2003 to reflect 28 May 2003 at 09:00 AM. In addition any offeror under SIN 874 can propose on this requirement. RFQ Title Project Management and Independent IV & V Testing Service RFQ Status Open Delivery Days Deliver 0 Days From Date of Award to Date of Completion RFQ Issue Date 04/28/2003 03:37:27 PM EDT RFQ Close Date 05/28/2003 03:37:27 PM EDT Line Items Mfr. part No/NSN/Item Manufacturer Product/Service Name Qty Unit Ship Address Program Manager 115 HR 1 Project Manager 1300 HR 1 Senior Application Engineer 1300 HR 1 Senior Functional Analyst 5050 HR 1 Computer Systems Analyst 5050 HR 1 Quality Assurance Analyst 1260 HR 1 Documentation Specialist 1255 HR 1 Admin Support / Graphics Spec 1255 HR 1 Description The purpose of this RFQ is to identify contractor support requirements for assisting Military Traffic Management Command (MTMC) in the effort to provide the Program Management Office (PMO) Support and IV & V testing of the Surface Transportation Management System (STMS) integration and implementation. The Contract Type will be a Requirements Type Contract with nine (9) twelve (12) month options. This procurement is a commercial computer based distribution management capability being developed by a Systems Integrator (SI) under a separate Military Traffic Management Command (MTMC)contract for the acquisition of Department of Defense (DoD) transportation. The STMS capability will utilize proven commercially available off the shelf (COTS) based solutions to replace current functionality found within MTMC's Integrated Booking System (IBS) and Global Freight Management System (GFM). The Contract Specialist for this procurement is Mr. Melvin Lamar at (703) 428-2053, Email:
[email protected]. The Contracting Officer is Ms. Toye Latimore, (703) 428- 2067, Email:
[email protected]. EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS. BASIS FOR AWARD The government intends to award based on the best overall value to the government considering evaluation factors cited in this request for proposal. To be considered for award, a proposal shall conform to all terms and conditions contained in the request for proposal. Proposals that are unrealistic in terms of resources or procedures will be deemed reflective of an inherent lack of technical competence or indicative of failure to comprehend the complexity of risks of the contractual requirements and may be grounds for rejection of the proposal. It should be noted that the award may be made without discussions; offerors are encouraged to submit their “Best Valueâ€� proposals with their original submission. The government reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined by the Contracting Officer to be necessary. The government may reject any and all offers if such action is in the public interest; make award to other than the lowest cost offer; and waive informalities and minor irregularities in offers received. EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS Factor 1: Technical Approach Subfactor 1.1: Technical approach and experience with large-scale complex computer software IV&V(IV&V test procedures to include stress and regression) processes, tools and doc umentation. Subfactor 1.2: Innovative approach using start of the art automated tools and process for IV&V for large system development and implementation. Subfactor 1.3: Knowledge, understanding and experience for DIS AIS life cycle management and software configuration management procedures and documentation to include the use of automated tools to record, analyze, and report problem reports and Engineering Change Proposals. Subfactor 1.4: Knowledge, understanding and experience of software engineering procedures automated tools, analytical procedures and documentation of related DoD transportation systems. Subfactor 1.5: Experience of similar work with DoD transportation functional requirements, business and distribution management processes, regulations and procedures. Subfactor 1.6: Relevant work examples that show experience in providing advice, assistance, performance monitoring, and evaluation of large-scale COTS implementation projects of similar size scope of STMS. Factor 2: Management Approach Subfactor 2.1: Managerial experience in similar work of complexity Subfactor 2.2: Management approach in monitoring cost, schedule and performance of the SI contractor IAW DOD 5000 AIS Life Cycle Management Subfactor 2.3: Monitoring the Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan for the SI contractor Subfactor 2.4: Qualification of personnel demonstrates relative experience and expertise industry certifications required to perform duties of this statement of work. Subfactor 2.5: Recent history (last 3 years) in solving problems methods of large scale system development projects. Subfactor 2.6: How cost will be managed and controlled. Factor 3: Past Performance Subfactor 3.1: Past performance with computer software IV&V test procedures, processes, tool and documentation Subfactor 3.2: Past performance managing and monitoring similar complex large scale transportation automated system life cycle management IAW DoD 5000 Subfactor 3.3: Past performance verifying, validating, and testing complex DoD transportation functionality integrating COTS of similar size and scope projects. Subfactor 3.4: Past performance with DoD transportation functional requirements and business processes. Factor 4: Cost/Price. N/A Factor 5. Sub-Contracting Plan. EVALUATION APPROACH . Selection of the successful offeror will be made based upon the evaluation criteria stated above. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD AND RELATIVE IMPORANCE OF FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS. RELATIVE IMPORTENCE OF FACTORS. Technical approach and Experience is the most important factor in the overall evaluation. The Management Approach is more important than Past Performance, but less important that Technical Approach and Experience. The Cost/Price and Sub-contracting Plan are equally important but is less important overall from Technical Approach and Experience, Management Approach and Past Performance. All sub-factors are of equal importance. The evaluation factors are listed in descending order of importance with Factor 1, Technical Approach and Experience, being the most important. EVALUATION CRITERIA. The evaluation factors are listed in descending order of importance with Factor 1, Technical Approach, being the most important. Factor 5: Subcontracting Plan. (). The government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror will use small business participation in regard to this request for proposal. Offerors that are not considered small business as defined by FAR 19.001 are required to submit a Subcontracting Plan with their proposals. The government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror will use small businesses, small disadvantage businesses, historically black colleges and universities, or subcontracting. The government will evaluate this factor in accordance with Appendix DD of the Army Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement. -T he plan should be prepared in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation 19.704(a)(1) through (c) and 19.705-4. In addition, the following goals have been established for this RFQ: Small Business: 23% Small Disadvantaged Business: 5% Women-Owned Business: 5% HUB Zones: 3% Service Disabled/Veteran Owned- 3% -These goals will be utilized for the purpose of identifying that the plan is realistic, challenging and attainable. The plan must demonstrate a real commitment to an active involvement in providing subcontracting opportunities for small and small disadvantaged business. - The extent of participation of small business in performance of the contract in accordance with clause FAR 52.219-9, “Small Business Contractingâ€� and FAR 52.219.8, “Utilization of Small Business Concernsâ€�. Evaluation Factors The criteria to be used to evaluate the written technical approach and cost proposal as part of the Fair Opportunity competitive process is: Adjectives: OUTSTANDING. The quality of the approach or plan satisfies to the fullest extent those characteristics required in the solicitation. It uses new or proven methods and is presented in a superbly organized and logical manner to ensure the evaluator gains a thorough understanding of the proposed approach. The approach has an outstanding probability of meeting all requirements. HIGHLY SATISFACTORY. The quality of the approach or plan satisfies all the requirements identified in the solicitation. It presents a method in sufficient detail to ensure the evaluator gains an understanding of the proposed approach. The proposed approach has the probability of producing highly satisfactory results. SATISFACTORY. The approach adequately meets the requirements in the RFQ and is presented with at least minimal detail to ensure the evaluator gains an understanding of the proposed approach. The approach has a satisfactory probability of meeting requirements with limited technical risk. MARGINAL. The approach or plan has been presented with some weak areas and major deficiencies. The substance and quality of the proposal as submitted indicate a marginal understanding of the requirement. Weak areas and major deficiencies could be corrected or expanded without a complete revision of the proposal. There is a significant risk in meeting requirements. UNACCEPTABLE. The approach or plan has been presented with major deficiencies and omissions or misunderstandings. A complete revision would not be adequate for this proposal to meet requirements. SUBCONTRACTING PLAN: PASS/FAIL Contractors are required to review the Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP)& Statement of Work (SOW) for the STMS PMO requirement at the following website in order to propose on this requirement: 1. http://www.mtmc.army.mil 2. Click on Business Center 3. Click on Solicitations 4. Locate STMS QASP Plan for STMS PMO 5. Click on SOW for STMS PMO The QASP & SOW will be available for viewing on Tuesday 16 May 2003. Patricia Oquendo, e-mail:
[email protected] Telephone:703-428-2030 Contract Specialist: Melvin Lamar (703) 428-2053, Email:
[email protected] Contracting Officer: Toye Latimore, (703) 428-2067 Email:
[email protected] Shipping Address (1) MTMC Military Traffic Management Command Hoffman Building II 200 Stoval Street Alexandria, VA 22332