00B DRFP 25R0001 - Section M.docx

SECTION M – EVALUATION PROCESS

M0 GENERAL

M0.1 Introduction. Section M describes the criteria the Government will use in evaluating the Offerors’ proposals submitted for the Warrior Care Global Support (WCGS) services contract. The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s capabilities and proposal elements against this evaluation criteria. This is a competitive, best value, source selection using a tradeoff process that will be conducted in accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.101-1, Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Part 215.101, and FAR 15.404. The Government intends to make a single prime contract award under this solicitation.

M0.2 Evaluation. The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s proposal against the evaluation criteria set forth below. The Government will award the WCGS contract from this solicitation to the Offeror whose proposal conforming to the solicitation is determined most advantageous to the Government. Technical execution, past performance, price, and other factors will be considered.

M0.3 Eligibility. In order to be eligible for award, a proposal must comply in all material respects with the requirements of the law, regulation and the terms and conditions set forth in the solicitation; and the Offeror must be determined to be responsible according to the standards set forth in FAR Subpart 9.1. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the Offeror’s proposal being considered unacceptable.

M0.4 Basis for Award. Award of the contract resulting from this solicitation will be made to the Offeror whose proposal complies with the solicitation requirements, who is deemed responsible and whose proposal is deemed to represent the best value to the Government based on the factors listed in Table M.1 below.

TABLE M.1

RATING

Responsible / Non-responsible

M0.5 Order of Importance. Factor 2 (Past Performance) and Factor 3 (Oral Presentation) are of equal importance and are individually more important than Factor 1 (Technical). Evaluation factors other than cost or price (Factor 1, Factor 2 and Factor 3), when combined, are significantly more important than Factor 4 (Price). The Government will employ a subjective tradeoff analysis among technical, past performance, oral presentations, and price.

Subjective tradeoff is a source selection process used when it may be in the best interest of the Government to consider award to other than the lowest priced Offeror or other than the highest technically rated Offeror, but it is not possible to place a quantifiable value on proposed performance or capabilities above threshold (minimum) requirements.

M0.6 Definitions. Significant Strength is an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal with appreciable merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the considerable advantage of the Government during contract performance. Strength is an aspect of an Offeror's proposal with merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the advantage of the Government during contract performance. Weakness means a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. Significant Weakness in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. Deficiency is a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

PHASE 1 – TECHNICAL MANAGEMENT AND PAST PERFORMANCE SUBMISSION

M1 VOLUME I - WCGS TECHNICAL MANAGEMENT PROPOSAL

M1.1 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s overall proposed technical approach to management, transition and mission continuity, staffing, retention, and safeguarding. The Government may incorporate areas of the Offeror’s proposed technical volume, which are determined as ‘strengths’ into the contract prior to award (i.e., added to SOW, Section H clause, etc.) as appropriate. Offerors that simply restate the Government’s requirement will be rated unacceptable. Evaluation of risk associated with the Offeror’s proposal for this factor is inherent in the evaluation. The Government will determine if the proposal meets or exceeds requirements, to what degree the proposed approach indicates an understanding of the requirements (Table M.1(A)), and the level of risk to unsuccessful performance per the color rating assigned based on the definitions contained within Table M.1(B) below.

The Government will utilize the combined Technical/Risk rating methodology contained within Table M.1(A) below, which includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the evaluation findings; significant strengths, strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies of the Offeror’s proposal when determining the Technical Factor color rating. Evaluation of risk will assess the degree to which the Offeror’s proposed approach for meeting the requirements outlined in this solicitation may cause disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the increased likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. Any inconsistencies between the proposed Management Approach, Transition Management and Mission Continuity, Staffing, Retention, Safeguarding Approach, and the Price Proposal, such as unbalanced pricing, pricing incompatibility, or other pricing anomalies will be assessed under the Factor 1 - Technical evaluation rating as technical risk. Risk is one aspect of the technical evaluation and contributes to determining the Factor level color rating.

The Technical Factor will receive one of the adjectival ratings defined below:

TABLE M.1(A) COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATING METHOD

TECHNICAL RATING

RATING

DESCRIPTION

TABLE M.1(B) COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATING METHOD

RISK DEFINITIONS

M1.1.1 Management Approach (Element 1). The Government will evaluate the Management Approach according to the following:

M1.1.1.1 Team Construct: The Government will evaluate the degree to which the proposed team will provide the required capabilities to manage/perform requirements for this effort, to include access to components of the SOCOM Enterprise needed to accomplish all requirements. The government will evaluate the degree to which the team construct possesses a combination of relevant RCC experience and SOF unit experience/access. The Government will evaluate the degree to which the proposed management organization is clear, logical, and provides for flat and effective communication and supervision. The Government will evaluate feasibility of proposed methods and processes to successfully oversee a geographically dispersed workforce. The Government will also evaluate the prime contractor’s ability to effectively manage and integrate subcontract support.

M1.1.2 Transition Management and Mission Continuity (Element 2). The Government will evaluate the Transition Management and Mission Continuity Approach according to the following:

M1.1.2.1 Phase-In Approach: The proposal will be evaluated for feasibility and impact on mission continuity. The Government will evaluate Offeror’s transition organization and dedicated resources provided to support contract transition activities that reduce anticipated risks and enable response to issues. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach, processes, and expertise to incumbent capture and its effects on overall mission continuity. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to provide appropriately cleared personnel to support the requirements of the contract IAW requirements of the DD Form 254. A feasible plan to capture a higher rate of incumbent personnel may be more favorably evaluated. The Government will evaluate the clarity, feasibility and degree of detail in identification of key activities and resources to achieve proposed milestones that meet requirements of transition and ensure full operational capability (FOC) for required personnel and locations stated in Attachment 00C - SOW, and Technical Exhibit (TE)-3.

M1.1.3 Staffing (Element 3). The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Staffing methods according to the following:

M1.1.3.1 Plan to Recruit and Integrate Non-Incumbent Personnel: The Government will evaluate the proposed approach to recruit new (non-incumbent) qualified personnel. The Offeror’s recruiting and backfill approach beyond the phase-in period will be evaluated to ensure sustainment of mission continuity and quality services to the Recovering Service Members (RSMs). The Government will evaluate the extent to which risk mitigation strategies regarding staffing shortfalls are clear, logical, feasible, and align with the requirements of the SOW. An Offeror that provides achievable risk mitigation strategies that limit shortfalls resulting from voluntary or involuntary personnel terminations may by more favorably evaluated.

M1.1.4 Retention (Element 4). The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Retention methods according to the following:

M1.1.3.2 Workforce Retention and Development: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s workforce retention and development approach to determine the Offeror’s understanding of the necessary workforce, expertise and qualification requirements. An offer that includes tangible resources, supportive retention plan, and personnel development practices to maximize retention may be favorably evaluated.

M1.1.5 Safeguarding Approaches (Element 5) The Government will assess the level of the Offeror’s understanding of steps required to achieve adequate security requirements. The Government will validate the proposed SPRS score in the SPRS system. An Offeror with a self-assessed score of less than 85 will be assigned a Deficiency and will not be considered for award. An Offeror with a self-assessed SPRS score of 110 may be more favorably evaluated.

M2 VOLUME II - PAST PERFORMANCE.

M2.1 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Past Performance for a demonstrated record of performance in providing the services delineated in Attachment 00C – SOW. The performance rating is assessed at the overall Past Performance Factor level after evaluating aspects of the Offeror’s recent and relevant performance to the WCGS requirements stated in Attachment 00C – SOW.

M2.2 Past Performance Summary. The past performance evaluation will be based on the data provided in the Offeror’s proposal, and other sources available to the Government. Past performance information may be obtained from any other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Contract Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; the Defense Contract Management Agency; and interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Fee Determining Officials. The Government is not limited to these resources.

M2.3 Organizational Structure Change History. The Government will evaluate the past performance of the efforts that meet the recency and relevancy defined below to determine the Government’s overall level of confidence in the Offeror’s ability to successfully perform the required effort using the ratings below in Table M.4. In the case of Joint Ventures, the Government will consider past performance submitted by the managing partners of the Joint Venture. In the case of an Offeror without a record of recent and relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the Offeror shall receive a Past Performance rating of “Unknown Confidence,” which equates to a neutral rating having neither positive nor negative evaluation significance.

M2.4 Past Performance Citations. The more a past performance citation is similar in these areas, the more relevant that effort becomes. No one relevancy criterion is more important than another when determining relevancy of a prime Offeror effort, but rather all criteria are considered holistically to subjectively assess one overall relevancy rating for each prime Offeror effort. A Prime Offeror effort does not have to be “Very Relevant” in all criteria to be determined “Very Relevant” overall. Additionally, a Prime Offeror effort could hypothetically be “Not Relevant” in one or more criterion and still be determined “Somewhat Relevant” or higher for that effort overall.

M2.5 Subcontractor Consent and Subcontractor Authorization. Key personnel experience will not be accepted for past performance submissions. Therefore, resumes or letters of recommendation are not valid.

M2.6 Recent Contracts. The Government will evaluate the “recency” of the Offeror’s past performance. The Government defines “recent” as contracts that have performance taking place during the past three years from the date of issuance of this solicitation.

M2.7 Relevant Contracts. Relevancy will then be determined based on the below reflecting recent (minimum of 6 months of performance within the past three years) past performance.

M2.7.1 For the prime Offerors, relevancy is defined as contracts that are most similar to this overall effort requiring (1) similarity of services, (2) similarity of security requirements, and similarity in complexity: (3) similarity in the number of required personnel (4) at a similar number of geographically dispersed locations.

M2.7.2 For proposed subcontractors/teaming partners, relevancy is defined by that which reflects performance in the area(s) of expertise the subcontractor is proposed to actually perform under this contract (i.e. specific functional areas in the SOW).

M2.7.3 When making the relevancy determination the following definitions will be used for both prime Offeror and subcontractor efforts:

Table M.3 Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method

Table M.4 Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method

Unknown Confidence (Neutral) No recent/relevant performance record is available, or the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

M2.8 An offeror that is not assessed as having a Substantial Confidence rating will not be considered for award.

PHASE 2 – ORAL PRESENTATION AND PRICE PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

M3 VOLUME III – ORAL PRESENTATION.

M3.1 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Oral Presentation by focusing on the contractor's demonstrated understanding of the WCGS mission and the contractor’s role in supporting the execution. The Government will utilize the combined Technical/Risk rating methodology contained within Table M.1(A) above, which includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the evaluation findings; significant strengths, strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies of the Offeror’s proposal when determining the Oral Presentation Factor color rating. Evaluation of risk will assess the degree to which the Offeror’s proposed approach for meeting the requirements outlined in this solicitation may cause disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the increased likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

M3.2 The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror understands the critical support areas to include support contractor personnel, communication with Government, emerging issues, and risks associated with the requirements set forth in the SOW.

M3.2.1 Execution: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s comprehension of the complexity and varying requirements to support each injured Service Member (SM). The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s ability to articulate their holistic approach to SM care during the full life cycle of patient care.

M3.2.2 Operational Planning: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s technical understanding of the tasks required to support SM, and their ability to improvise, adapt, and overcome “on-the-spot" changes in SM needs, to include levels of management required for “on-the-ground decision making” to ensure an adequate approach to SM support. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s comprehension of required after action responsibilities, as well as their ability to document significant actions and issues encountered. "On-the-spot" changes may include increases in personnel required, changes in patient needs, as well as on-the-ground issues or non-responsive patients.

M4 VOLUME IV – PRICE.

M4.1 Price proposals will be evaluated for reasonableness, price realism (compensation plan only), unbalanced pricing, and a clear understanding of the requirement and are consistent with the Offeror’s technical proposal. Compensation plans will be evaluated to ensure it reflects a sound management approach and ability to provide uninterrupted high-quality services. Technical Risk will be evaluated as follows:

M4.2 Price. The Government will use price analysis techniques in order to determine price fair and reasonable IAW FAR 15.404. The price evaluation will consider the base period price and all option prices for a total evaluated price.

M4.2.1 Travel. Costs incurred by contractor personnel for travel are subject to the limitations of Federal Regulation (FAR) 31.205-46, Travel Costs which include the Federal Travel Regulations (FTR) and the Joint Travel Regulation (JTR).

M4.2.2 Options. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options and optional CLINs to the total price for the basic requirement. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s). As part of price evaluation, the Government will evaluate its option to extend services (FAR Clause 52.217-8) by adding six months of the Offeror's final option period price to the Offeror's total price. Thus, the Offerors total price for purpose of evaluation will include the base period, 1st option, 2nd option, 3rd option, 4th option; and half of the proposed price (six months) of 4th option period. Offerors are not required to enter a price for the six-month period. The Government may choose to exercise the Extension of Services at the end of any performance period (base or option periods), utilizing the rates of that performance period.

M4.2.3 Compensation Plan. The Government will evaluate the compensation plan required for its proposed personnel, proposed as prime and subcontractors (if applicable) to ensure the Offeror’s plan reflects a sound management approach and understanding of the requirement, as well as the Offeror’s ability to provide uninterrupted high-quality services. The compensation proposed will be assessed in terms of its impact on recruiting and retention, and its consistency with the proposed compensation plan(s). The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposed compensation levels reflect a clear understanding of the work to be performed and demonstrate the capability to obtain and retain suitably qualified personnel to meet mission objectives. Proposals including compensation levels lower than those of predecessor contracts for the same work will be evaluated on the basis the Offeror’s ability to maintain mission continuity, uninterrupted high-quality of work, and availability of required, qualified personnel. Any Offeror’s total evaluated price, considered unreasonably high or unrealistically low without valid explanation, may be considered as proposing an unacceptable risk to the Government.

M5 BASIS OF AWARD

M5.1 To arrive at a source selection decision, the Source Selection Authority (SSA) will perform an integrated assessment using the evaluation factors described in this solicitation. This may result in an award being made to a higher rated, higher priced Offeror where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors.

M5.2 The Government intends to award without discussions but reserves the right to hold discussions if necessary. If discussions do become necessary, the Government will establish a competitive range.

M5.3 Key Personnel. Understanding the complexities of requesting resumes while also expecting maximum incumbent capture where practical and possible, the Government will NOT request submission of resumes with the proposal. Upon initial award determination by the SSA, the apparent awardee will be given 5 business days to provide resumes for all positions identified as Key Personnel in SOW Section 4.