Inactive Historically Underutilized Business (HUBZone) Sole Source (FAR 19.13)

The purpose of this amendment is to provide responses to questions, an updated SOW, an updated RFP, and additional wage determinations. Additionally, the submission deadline is extended to June 18 at ... The purpose of this amendment is to provide responses to questions, an updated SOW, an updated RFP, and additional wage determinations. Additionally, the submission deadline is extended to June 18 at 12 PM EST. Solicitation Number: 70FB8020R00000007 - Request for Proposal Solicitation Title: IMAT Leadership Development and Support Document Type: Request for Proposal (RFP) Solicitation Number: 70FB8020R00000007 Issue Date: June 11, 2020 Questions Due Date: June 15, 2020 by 10 AM EST Proposal Due Date: June 18, 2020 by 12 PM EST Period of Performance One-year base plus two one-year options INTRODUCTION: This procurement is a total set aside for HUBZone small businesses in accordance with FAR 19.1305. The NAICS for this procurement is 611430. The Leadership Development and Support contract for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Incident Management Assistance Teams (IMAT) will first develop and deliver leadership training for the 25 members of the newly established National IMAT (White). The first delivery will be at the IMAT Leadership Academy which will be held from, 29 June 2020 - 24 July 2020. Once this academy has ended, we will seek support for developing and delivering curriculum for additional training and readiness drills, and revision of future academies. **Due to COVID-19 conditions, the initial curriculum and academy will be delivered as the IMAT Leadership Academy held from 29 June 2020 - 24 July 2020 and will be virtual. This initial delivery has its curriculum resourced by the government and the contractor will not be required to resource it, secure passed-through, required to design or developed any curriculum. Once the June/July 2020 academy delivery has ended, the contractor will be required to provide support for redesigning and redeveloping curriculum for an in-residence delivery.** The contractor will research existing curriculum to include but not be limited to: leadership development, team building, critical thinking, and decision making to meet the above needs for the IMAT Leadership Academy. The contractor will be expected to present a menu of training options to the project management team. The project management team will review options and select curriculum that best fits the needs of the IMAT program based on the contractor’s recommendations. The contractor will be expected to engage subject matter experts to research and develop curriculum. The contractor will be responsible to provide, develop, or collect for all aspects of the development, planning, organization, conduct, and evaluation of curriculum. Contractor shall also provide curriculum design, development, sustainment and support as required by the government that includes but is not limited to; case studies, training courses, workshops, seminars, revision of current curricula or the like. These deliverables will be identified by the government either by set schedule, or through as needed requirements. This requirement may include six (6) or more deliverables per year. These deliverables will be identified by the government either by set schedule, or through as needed requirements. Contractor shall provide staffing to perform required deliverable by deadline set by government. The Service Contract Act applies to this contract. Wage determinations for potential places of performance are attached to this RFP. This RFP will be amended if necessary, to include additional wage determinations. All additional wage determination requests shall be submitted by the question deadline – June 15, 2020 at 10 AM EST. For additional information or localities, offerors can visit wdol.gov. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS: This Request for Proposal will result in a Time & Material contract. CLINS shall be priced based on RFP Attachment 2 Pricing Template. Before the actual proposal is submitted, the offeror will have an opportunity to ask questions pertaining to the RFP and Statement of Work (SOW). Answers to the question will be returned the same day unless specified by the Contracting Officer. Please adhere to the following instructions. Question(s)/Wage Determination Additions Due Date/Time: June 15, 2020 at 10 AM EST. Please send questions to: kimberly.hodge@fema.dhs.gov Proposal Due Date/Time and Method of Response Delivery: Proposal must be sent via e-mail and the proposal due date/time is: June 18, 2020 at 12 PM EST. Send proposals to the following email address: kimberly.hodge@fema.dhs.gov. Proposal submission: Proposals shall be submitted in three separate files: cover letter, technical proposal, and price proposal. The files should include the following information: Cover letter: Dun & Bradstreet Number (DUNS) Company’s Name and Address Point of Contact Name Contact email address Contact telephone and fax number Complete business mailing address Small Business size status and HUBZone certificate Technical Capability – This portion of your proposal shall address your demonstrated experience, technical and management approach, capability of key personnel, and past performance. Demonstrated Experience - The Offeror shall submit a written submission, totaling no more than three (3) pages, detailing their EXPERIENCE by addressing each of the three bullets/topics below under Factor 1. Technical & Management – The offeror shall submit a written submission, totaling no more than five (5) pages, detailing their approach addressing the items listed below under Factor 2. Capability of Key Personnel - The Offeror shall submit resumes that describe the specific, relevant experience and availability of key personnel in providing services described in the SOW in accordance with Factor 3 below. Resumes shall not be more than three (3) pages each. Past Performance –The offeror shall submit at least two (2) but no more than three (3) past performance references in accordance with Factor 4 below. Past performance references shall not exceed three (3) pages per reference. Price Proposal – This portion of your proposal shall include your price per the pricing template (RFP Attachment 3) The pricing template includes anticipated labor categories and an estimated number of hours. However, the contractor may propose alternate labor categories and hours. A justification must be provided for any proposed changes. BASIS FOR AWARD: FEMA’s source evaluation will be based on best-value, trade-off principles. Accordingly, award will be made to the responsible and technically acceptable Offeror whose proposal provides the greatest overall value to the Government, price and other factors considered. This best-value determination will be accomplished by comparing the value of the differences in the technical factors for competing offers with differences in their price to the Government. In making this comparison, the Government is more concerned with obtaining superior technical and management capabilities than with making an award at the lowest overall cost to the Government. The Offeror is advised that technical evaluation factors other than cost or price are significantly more important than cost or price. However, the Government will not make an award at a significantly higher overall price to achieve slightly superior technical approach. The Government intends to award a contract without discussions with a respective Offeror. The Government, however, reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest. Therefore, it is important that your proposal be submitted initially on the most favorable terms and should include required pricing in Volume II. This RFP does not commit the Government to pay any cost for the preparation and submission of a proposal. In addition, the Contracting Officer is the only individual who can legally commit the Government to the expenditure of public funds in connection with this proposed acquisition. EVALUATION FACTORS: All proposals shall be subject to evaluation by a technical team. Evaluation of all offers will be made in accordance with the criteria outlined in this section. The proposals will be evaluated against the following five (5) factors: Demonstrated Experience Technical & Management Approach Capability of Proposed Key Personnel Past Performance Sub-factor 1: Relevancy Sub-factor 2: Customer Satisfaction Price (Not a Technical Evaluation Factor) NOTE: There is an important distinction between a contractor’s demonstrated experience and its past performance. Demonstrated experience reflects whether contractors have performed similar work before. Past performance describes how well contractors performed the work. Evaluation Factors are listed below in order of precedence: Demonstrated Experience Technical & Management Approach Capability of Proposed Key Personnel Past Performance Price (Not a Technical Evaluation Factor) FEMA will use a Best Value Trade-Off analysis for this requirement. Evaluation factors #1 (Demonstrated Experience), #2 (Technical/Management Approach) #3 (Capability of Proposed Key Personnel) are of equal importance and individually are significantly more important than #4 (Past Performance). All non-price factors combined are significantly more important than price. The best value offer may not necessarily be the proposal offering the lowest price or receiving the highest technical rating. EVALUTAION CRITERION Detailed descriptions of the evaluation factors are provided below. The Government reserves the right to make an award to that Offeror whose proposal provides the best value trade-off to the United States Government. The evaluation will be based on the demonstrated capabilities of the Offeror in relation to the needs of the project as set forth in the Request for Proposal (RFP). The merits of the proposal will be evaluated carefully, based on the thoroughness and feasibility of the responses to the technical evaluation criteria. The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible Offeror(s) whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers: Factor 1: Demonstrated Experience The Offeror shall demonstrate in the submission that it has experience designing, developing delivering and supporting an academy type leadership training to include curriculum design, development or revisions to existing program curriculum to support the scope and complexity identified in the Statement of Work (SOW). The Offeror shall describe in detail: Demonstrated experience in developing and executing project management plans for leadership training design and delivery. Demonstrated experience in providing operational and logistical Support for leadership training design and delivery. Demonstrated experience with developing customized training and relevant materials, presenting options for curriculum to program management, and building comprehensive curriculum delivery plans. Demonstrated experience with designing and developing plans to measure and assure knowledge transfer has taken place. Demonstrated experience in managing staff and/or subcontracting to execute leadership training and ensuring that all staff are available at the appropriate times, instructing specified courses/ blocks of instruction, coordinating for subject matter experts to facilitate and lead courses, and providing all necessary course materials to all participants. Demonstrated experience in performing the requirements in Section E. of the SOW. The evaluation of this factor is based on the demonstrated prior experience presented by the offeror, and how well it aligns with the requirements in the SOW. Offerors may provide/reference up to five (5) recent examples of demonstrated experience in their submission. Offerors are encouraged to submit experience performed as a prime, through teaming agreements, or as the sole sub-contractor on the relevant projects. More weight may be given to experience serving as the prime contractor, depending on the circumstances. Experience submitted that was performed by sub-contractors anticipated for this contract effort will be considered as relevant. Recent is defined as within the last seven (7) years, and relevant is defined as being of a similar scope and complexity. Factor 2: Technical & Management Approach The Offeror’s technical and management approach will be evaluated by assessing the likelihood that the Offerors’ proposed technical approaches/plans will meet the Government’s requirements, including any associated risk of the Offeror’s non-performance in the technical solution. The Offeror’s proposals shall be evaluated for merit and appropriateness of the Offeror’s plan to organize, access, and manage resources such as personnel and subcontracts. The Offeror shall demonstrate an ability to identify and provide an organizational and management structure that can provide support to the IMAT program office and the IMAT Leadership Academy. Specifically, the Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated for: The degree in which the Offeror’s proposal demonstrates an understanding of the technical requirement and the ability to development a management plan as listed in section D.1) of the SOW; and management in accordance with that plan The degree in which the Offeror demonstrates clear knowledge and understanding of the requirement, including the deliverables and tasks required to successfully support the IMAT Academy The degree in which the Offeror demonstrates an ability to access and manage resources such as their program manager, staff resources, and any subcontracts; The degree in which the Offeror explains any and all assumptions, exceptions, or disagreements regarding the technical requirements listed in this RFP; The degree in which the Offeror’s response demonstrates clear knowledge and understanding of the operational and logistical support associated with the requirement; The degree in which the Offeror demonstrates an ability to organize and develop a menu of curriculum options built from existing trainings, as specified in task 1-d of the SOW. The degree in which the Offeror demonstrates an ability and understanding to direct and control the operations of this contract both programmatically and on a day-to-day basis in an efficient and cost-effective manner The degree in which the Offeror’s hiring procedures, retention strategies, skill mix, levels of expertise and qualifications required for positions other than "Key" positions, distribution and effective use of the workforce, hiring plans and recruiting methods, etc., reflect mission success. Factor 3: Capability of Key Personnel The Offeror will be evaluated on the strength of the key personnel proposed both individually and collectively. The resumes shall demonstrate the technical competency of each proposed Key Personnel to support the requirements of the scope and contractual obligations contained within the solicitation. Critical evaluation elements shall be assessed as follows: Demonstration of educational qualifications of proposed Key Personnel; Demonstration of relevant experience as required by the SOW; Demonstration of both commercial and federal expertise, with more weight given to expertise in emergency management leadership training expertise The Required Key Personnel labor categories under this Contract: 1. Program Manager 2. Subject Matter Expert Ratings for Technical Evaluation Factors 1, 2 and 3 Rating Definition Superior The proposal demonstrates an excellent understanding of the requirements and an approach that significantly exceeds performance or capability standards. The Offeror’s proposal addresses all aspects of the requirements in detail and has one or more significant strengths that will significantly benefit the Government and risk of unsuccessful performance is very low. Satisfactory The proposal demonstrates an understanding of the requirements and an approach that meets performance or capability standards. The Offeror’s proposal addresses most aspects of the requirements and presents an acceptable solution with one or more strengths and risk of unsuccessful performance is moderate. Unsatisfactory The proposal fails to meet requirements and one or more deficiencies exist for which correction would require a major revision or redirection of the proposal. The Offeror’s proposal does not address key aspects of the requirement and a contract cannot be awarded with this proposal as the risk of unsuccessful performance is high. Factor 4: Past Performance The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the Offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. Past Performance will be evaluated as an indicator of the Offeror’s expected future performance. The Government reserves the right to contact references for verification or additional information. The Government’s inability to contact any of the Offeror’s references or the references unwillingness to provide the information requested may affect the Government’s evaluation of this factor. Table 3: Past Performance Ratings: Select 1 of the 4 ratings based on the Sub- factor of 1) Relevancy and 2) Customer Satisfaction: Ratings for Technical Evaluation Factor 4 – Past Performance Rating Description Outstanding Based on an Offeror’s past performance record, essentially no doubt exists that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Satisfactory Based on an Offeror’s past performance record, the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Unsatisfactory Based on an Offeror’s past performance record, doubt exists that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Neutral No relevant performance record is identifiable upon which to base a meaningful performance rating. A search was unable to identify any relevant past performance information for the Offeror or key team members/subcontractors or their key personnel. This is neither a negative nor positive assessment. Sub-factor 1: Relevancy At a minimum, there are two aspects to the past performance evaluation. The first is to evaluate whether the Offeror’s present/past performance is relevant or not relevant to the effort to be acquired. Relevant is defined as work similar in complexity and magnitude to the work identified in this solicitation. The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the contractor performed on the contracts. Sub-factor 2: Customer Satisfaction References: The Government will evaluate the Contractor’s capacity to submit at least two (not more than three (3)) Past Performance References. The Government will evaluate the vendor’s past performance on contracts with Government agencies and private industry and their performance will be evaluated in terms of project management, accuracy of cost estimates, cost control, quality of work, completion of projects within budget and compliance with performance schedules for contracts of a similar type, size and scope. The references shall be of contractual work that is similar to the requirements set forth in this solicitation. If the Offeror has no relevant corporate or organizational past performance, the Offeror may substitute past performance of a predecessor company or of the Offeror’s proposed key personnel who have relevant experience. References shall be for projects completed in the last five years or currently in progress. Contracts with the parent or an affiliate of the Offeror may not be used. The past performance evaluation will assess the Offeror’s record of how well the organization did on work for the Government and private sector clients, resilience in the face of trouble, resourcefulness, management determination to see that the organization lived up to commitments or standards, and skill in the development of a responsive team; all of which are indicators of past performance. The following information shall be provided for each referenced contract: Administrative Data Program title or product name Contract number Contract type Relevance Brief synopsis of work performed Brief discussion of how the work performed is relevant to this solicitation Contract Value Information on problems encountered on each contract and corrective actions taken to resolve those problems. Experience gained that will be made available to accomplishing these required services. A self-assessment for each effort/project described under its experience, indicating whether performance was satisfactory to the customer, completed on schedule, completed within budget, an overview of the cooperation and responsiveness to clients and successor contractors, and the overall quality of the work performed. This may include a discussion of noteworthy successes, accomplishments, awards or commendations achieved during the referenced effort. A current point of contact (name and phone number) for each job described under experience for the purposes of a reference. The Government reserves the right to conduct telephone interviews to validate information provided in the past performance questionnaires and to obtain additional information from other internal and external sources, if known. 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 will not be given a favorable or unfavorable evaluation rating; instead the Offeror will receive a neutral rating for the past performance factor. Additionally, the Government reserves the right to also use Contractor Performance Assessment Reports (CPARS) from the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) in the past performance evaluation of an organization. Factor 5 - VOLUME II: PRICE Proposal Price Evaluation (not part of technical evaluation) Price will be evaluated separately from the technical proposal. The Government will evaluate price to determine whether the offered price is fair and reasonable. The total evaluated price of the Offeror’s proposal will be calculated in the Summary sheet and evaluated by the Government. The price for CLIN 0004 Travel has been normalized and will not be evaluated. Options. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s). INVOICING INSTRUCTIONS An invoice is a written request for payment under this contract for supplies delivered or services rendered. Payment of invoices submitted under this contract shall be handled in Office of Management and Budget (OMB) prompt payment regulations at 5 CFR Part 1315, and in accordance with the provisions of other clauses in this contract. Failure or refusal to provide the following information on all invoices submitted under this contract may result in the invoice being considered improper for payment in accordance with the Prompt Payment Act. In order to be proper, an invoice must include, as applicable, the following: Name of Contractor Invoice Date Contract Number (including order number, is any), contract line item number, contract description of supplies or services, quantity, contract unit of measure and unit price and extended total. Shipment number and date of shipment (bill-of-landing number and weight of shipment will be shown for shipments on Government bills of lading). Name, title, phone number and complete mailing address of responsible Official who can be contacted in the event of an improper invoice, if there are questions or additional information is needed by this agency to process payment. Any other information or documentation required by other provisions of the Contract (such as evidence of shipment). Invoices shall be prepared and submitted as follows: The most expeditious method submitting invoices is via email to the FEMA Finance Center (FFC): A copy of the invoice shall be sent electronically to FEMA-Finance-Vendor-Payments@fema.dhs.gov, Kathleen.mccoy@fema.dhs.gov and kimberly.hodge@fema.dhs.gov in read-only format, and the supporting documentation should be supplied as an attachment. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 Statement of Work (updated for Amendment 2) Attachment 2 Clauses Attachment 3 Pricing Template Attachment 4 Wage Determination Washington DC 2015-4281 Attachment 5 Wage Determination FL Counties 2015-4539 Attachment 6 Wage Determination Palm Beach County 2015-4573 Attachment 7 Wage Determination Baltimore County 2015-4265 Attachment 8 Wage Determination Hillsborough County 2015-4271 Attachment 9 Wage Determination Los Angeles County 2015-5613 Attachment 10 Wage Determination Harris County 2015-5233 Attachment 11 Question Responses