Att._4_-_Evaluation_Factors_for_Award.docx

Department of State Request for Proposal 19AQMM19R0093

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD – ATTACHMENT 4

In addition to all provisions elsewhere in RFP Section M – Evaluation factors for award, the Government will evaluate proposals in accordance with the information herein.

In order to ensure maximum efficiency and transparency throughout the solicitation and evaluation process, to limit undue financial risk associated with Bid and Proposal cost expenditures by Offerors who may be unlikely to rank highly in evaluation, and to ultimately obtain the best proposal for the Government upon contract award, the source selection for the OSIN Contract will involve a multi-phased evaluation, with each phase resulting in a competitive range determination. Within each phase, the contracting officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range pursuant to paragraph (f) of RFP provision 52.215-1, Alt I.

Proposals will be evaluated based on the following evaluation factors. Factor 1 shall be evaluated during Phase I, while factors 2, 3 and 4 will be evaluated during Phase II. Factors 1, 2 and 3 (i.e. the non-cost/price factors) are of equal importance. When combined, the non-cost/price factors are significantly more important than cost/price. As technical merit of the proposals become more equal, the evaluated cost/price may become the determining factor. The Contracting Officer shall determine what trade-off between technical merit and cost/price promises the greatest value to the Government, price and other factors considered.

FACTOR 1: Performance Confidence Assessment (Past Performance) FACTOR 2: Staffing Approach FACTOR 3: Management Approach FACTOR 4: Cost/Price

I. Phase I – Factor 1 - Performance Confidence Assessment (Past Performance)

This factor evaluates the Offeror’s relevant past performance history to generate a Performance Confidence Rating of the Offeror’s ability to successfully perform the requirements of this contract.

There are two aspects to the assessment of performance confidence:

The first aspect is to evaluate how relevant recent efforts accomplished by the Offeror are to the effort required by this solicitation. In making this determination, the Government reserves the right to use both data provided by the Offeror and data obtained from other sources. In determining relevance, the Government will evaluate the extent to which the referenced efforts are similar to this solicitation in scope, magnitude, and complexity as detailed below:

· Scope – each referenced effort will be compared to the type of services that are required to achieve the objectives presented in the Statement of Work (SOW).

· Magnitude – the cost/price per year of the offeror’s past performance reference as a prime contractor will be compared to the estimated cost/price per year for this effort. The other past performance references shall have at least a total value of $1M for each reference.

· Complexity – each referenced effort will be compared to the requirements of this effort for overall complexity (e.g., 24x7x365 persistent monitoring, number of monitored and protected equities, use of expansive COTS toolsets and native platforms, interaction with Intelligence Community (IC) and Law Enforcement (LE) community, LE adjacent work, operations requiring language and cultural expertise services)

The Government will consider efforts performed for agencies of the federal, state, or local governments and commercial customers. The evaluation will also include review of efforts performed by other divisions, subcontractors, or teaming contractors, if such resources are proposed. For subcontractors/teaming partners, the relevancy determination will focus on the present and past work history as it relates to the specific role(to include “Significant subcontractor”) and scope of work the subcontractor/teaming partner is proposed to perform for this effort.

For the prime contractor, the relevancy determination will include comparison to the entire scope of effort for this solicitation regardless of whether the prime or a subcontractor is proposed to do the work.

The definitions of relevancy are as follows:

Somewhat Relevant

Present/past performance effort involves some but not all of the scope, magnitude of effort and complexities of this solicitation.

The second aspect of the performance confidence assessment is to determine how well the Offeror performed on previous efforts. In making this determination, the Government reserves the right to use both data provided by the Offeror and data obtained from other sources, including records available in PPIRS and other Government records. Where the relevant performance record indicates performance problems, the Government will consider the number and severity of the problems and the appropriateness and effectiveness of any corrective actions taken.

To arrive at an overall Performance Confidence Rating for each Offeror, the evaluation team will consider:

· The combination of the relevancy and performance history of each reference;

· The context of present and past efforts (i.e. previous performance as prime; contractor or subcontractor) in relation to the Offeror’s proposed role on this effort;

· The percentage of effort the prime and each subcontractor is contributing to the effort; and,

· The “whole picture” the individual references collectively provide.

Offerors that do not possess a record of relevant performance or for whom information on present and past performance is not available will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably for Past Performance. Such Offerors will receive a “Neutral” rating to signify an “Unknown Confidence” rating. A record of relevant, successful performance will be considered more advantageous to the Government than a “Neutral/Unknown Confidence” rating. Relevant, successful performance at the subcontractor level also will have a greater positive impact on the Performance Confidence Rating than a “Neutral/Unknown Confidence” rating.

Likewise, more relevant performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Rating than a less relevant effort. The less relevant a contract is determined to be, the less positive the impact of the performance associated with that contract will have on the overall Performance Confidence Rating. Offerors with a negative past performance rating will be afforded an opportunity to address alleged deficiencies if they have not already been afforded such opportunity (e.g. through the CPARS process). Failure of an Offeror to disclose its poor past performance on a relevant Government contract may adversely affect its past performance rating for this acquisition.

Each Offeror will receive one of the ratings described below:

Limited Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Evaluation of the Past Performance Phase I Proposal will result in the establishment of the first competitive range. Only those Offerors whose documented past performance garner the highest Performance Confidence Ratings will be included in the first competitive range. (Note: The number in the competitive range may be further limited for purposes of efficiency pursuant to FAR 15.306(c)(2).) Those excluded from the first competitive range will be so notified pursuant to FAR 15.306(c)(3). Those Offerors who are excluded from the competitive range will not be considered further for award. All and only those Offerors who are included in the competitive range will be invited to continue on to Phase II.

II. Phase II –Technical and Cost/Price

All and only those Offerors who are included in the first competitive range will be invited to submit written Technical and Cost/Price Proposals. Offerors that fail to submit technical and cost/price proposals will be excluded from competition without further consideration.

The Technical Evaluation Factors (i.e. non-Cost/Price) will be evaluated using an adjectival rating scheme of Superior, Acceptable, Marginal, Unacceptable. An “Unacceptable” rating in any factor may result in the elimination of a contractor’s proposal from consideration for award.

The Government shall conduct an in-depth review of each Written Technical Proposal against the following non-price/cost factors and assign adjectival evaluation ratings for each:

Evaluation Factor 2: Staffing Approach

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s proposal demonstrates specific approaches and capabilities that will effectively attract and retain qualified staff and provide uninterrupted high quality work to the Department of State (“The Department” or “DOS”). Specifically, the Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s proposal provides:

1. A recruiting process that is efficient and effective and provides reasonable timeframes for fully staffing contract activities;

2. A Compensation Plan and Summary of Employee Benefits that is realistic and will attract and retain staff who can execute all contracted activities;

3. A Training Management Plan that is workable and will maintain the certifications and skillsets of the employees who will provide direct labor under the contract;

4. The capability to provide key personnel who are sufficiently qualified to manage and perform the work described in the tasks areas to which they are assigned. Specifically, the Government will include among its considerations for key personnel evaluation the education, training, and experience of the proposed employee(s); the amount of time the proposed employee(s) will actually perform under the contract; the likelihood that the proposed employee(s) will agree to work for the contractor; and the impact of utilizing the proposed employee(s) on the contractor's other contracts;

Evaluation Factor 3: Management Approach

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror demonstrates a comprehensive and effective Management Approach to meet the requirements of the contract. Specifically, the Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s proposal provides:

1. An organizational structure that provides well-defined lines of authority, responsibility and communication and the ability to complete complex efforts;

2. Well-controlled processes and procedures for normative and day-to-day functions and controls, planning for future needs, flex-time and managing for surge or as-needed support;

3. A Travel Management Plan that provides effective, workable procedures for managing personnel travel in accordance with the Federal Travel Regulations;

4. An effective, efficient recruiting process;

5. For offerors proposing sub-contractors, the government will also evaluate the extent to which the offeror’s proposal demonstrates:

a. Clear roles and responsibilities for each sub-contractor;

b. Reasonable work allocation based upon successful previous engagements;

c. Workable processes for managing subcontractors that will ensure that their products are delivered on time and are of sufficient quality to enable the Offeror to meet all contractual requirements;

d. Small Business Participation IAW Clause 52.219-9 Alt II and 652.219-70.

6. Facility Clearance Level commensurate with the requirements of the DD254 for the prime and proposed subcontractors.

7. A description of the offeror’s quality control plan, including specific methods and procedures for quality monitoring and tracking.

The technical rating reflects the degree to which the proposal meets, exceeds, or does not meet the minimum performance or capability requirements through an assessment of its strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, and risks.

For factors 2 and 3, each Offeror’s Technical Proposal will receive one of the ratings described below:

III. Cost/Price

The principal basis for evaluating price as a factor for contract award under this solicitation will be an evaluation of the offerors’ respective proposed Grand Total prices submitted in Attachment 2 – Pricing Spreadsheet. In doing so, the Government will examine the completeness, accuracy, and reasonableness of all offerors’ proposed prices in Attachment 2 – Pricing Spreadsheet. The Government will use one or more of the proposal analysis techniques at FAR 15.404 to conduct the price evaluation.

IV. Cost/Price-Technical Tradeoff

A trade-off analysis (see FAR 15.101-1) will be performed involving all parts of the proposals (i.e. Phase I Past Performance, Phase II Technical Proposal, and Phase II Cost/Price Proposal), from those Offerors remaining in the competition. This process permits tradeoffs among cost/price and non-cost factors and allows the Government to accept other than the lowest priced proposal. The perceived benefits of the higher priced proposal shall merit the additional cost, and the rationale for tradeoffs will be documented in the file in accordance with 15.406.

V. Eligibility for Award

To be eligible for award, offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, and non-price and price instructions in Section L. Failure to comply with all solicitation requirements may result in the offeror being removed from award consideration.

The Government may also reject a proposal if the proposal reflects an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the overall requirements of the solicitation.

The determination of offeror responsibility will be made by the Contracting Officer and will be assessed on a pass/fail basis. The Government will make determinations of responsibility in accordance with FAR Subpart 9.1 (Responsible Prospective Contractors) by using information provided in the Price Proposal volume and information available from other sources. The Government also reserves the right to determine the responsibility of subcontractor offeror(s).

The Government reserves the right to conduct a Pre-Award Survey of the offeror or its subcontractor offeror(s) to assist in the Contracting Officer’s responsibility determination.