SECTION_M.pdf

RFP: 75FCMC19R0003

Pg. 143 of 149

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1 CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

This incorporates one or more clauses by reference, with the same force and effect as if they were given in full text. Upon request, the Contracting Officer will make their full text available. Also, the full text of a clause may be accessed electronically at this address: http://farsite.hill.af.mil/

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Clauses:

52.217-5 Evaluation of Options (JUL 1990)

M.2 GENERAL PROCEDURES

A. The Government will conduct an evaluation of each proposal under the best value continuum where all evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price in accordance with FAR 15.304. IDIQ contract awards will be made to responsible Offerors whose proposal offers the best overall value to the Government in accordance with the evaluation methodology described herein. Best Value will be determined by a tradeoff technique that allows the

Government to consider award to other than the lowest priced/cost Offeror, or other than the highest technically rated Offeror in accordance with FAR 15.101-1.

The Government will perform a combined technical evaluation for the award of the

IDIQ contract, whereby the evaluation of the Sample Task Order and IDIQ information, when combined, will inform the Government of which Offerors will receive an IDIQ award. The Sample Task Order information will be evaluated for the purposes of a best value assessment only, and will not be evaluated separately.

Identification of strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses and/or deficiencies will be noted and adjectival ratings will be assigned after this combined technical evaluation.

The Sample Task Order and IDIQ technical proposals will be evaluated together and will receive one adjectival rating for each evaluation criteria.

B. An Offeror should not assume that the CO will independently obtain information necessary to evaluate its proposal and should therefore supply all information required to evaluate its proposal. Failure to provide the information required to evaluate a proposal may result in rejection of the proposal as being technically unacceptable, a finding that the proposal is excluded from the competitive range, or otherwise being downgraded. The CO, at their discretion, may request clarifying information from an

Offeror to complete the initial technical evaluation.

C. The Sample Task Order is considered representative of the type of work that may be required under the RMADA 2 IDIQ. Business/Cost evaluation will be conducted by performing a cost realism analysis based only upon the cost proposal submitted in response to the Sample Task Order.

http://farsite.hill.af.mil/

Pg. 144 of 149

D. The Government anticipates multiple IDIQ contract awards resulting from this solicitation. The actual number of IDIQ contracts awarded will depend upon the quantity and quality of proposals received, sufficient to provide for the fair opportunity of consideration for individual awards.

E. The Offeror will be evaluated on the past performance of relevant Federal, State and local government, and private contracts and subcontracts, which are of similar scope, magnitude and complexity to that which is detailed in the RFP. (The information must be clear whether the work by the Offeror was done as a prime contractor or a subcontractor). Offerors who describe relevant contracts and subcontracts shall provide a detailed explanation demonstrating the relevance of the contracts to the requirements of the RFP. In accordance with FAR 9.104-1, General standards, the

Offeror must have a satisfactory performance record in order to be considered for award. See also FAR 9.104-3(b), Satisfactory Performance Record, and FAR 42.15, Contractor Performance Information.

F. The Sample Task Order is considered representative of the type of work that may be required under the RMADA 2 IDIQ. Business/Cost evaluation will be conducted by performing a cost realism analysis based only upon the cost proposal submitted in response to the Sample Task Order.

G. The Government anticipates multiple IDIQ contract awards resulting from this solicitation. The actual number of IDIQ contracts awarded will depend upon the quantity and quality of proposals received, sufficient to provide for the fair opportunity of consideration for individual awards.

H. The Offeror will be evaluated on the past performance of directly related or similar

Federal, State and local government, and private contracts and subcontracts, which are of similar scope, magnitude and complexity to that which is detailed in the RFP. (The information must be clear whether the work by the Offeror was done as a prime contractor or a subcontractor). Offerors who describe similar contracts and subcontracts shall provide a detailed explanation demonstrating the similarity of the contracts to the requirements of the RFP. In accordance with FAR 9.104-1, General standards, the Offeror must have a satisfactory performance record in order to be considered for award. See also FAR 9.104-3(b), Satisfactory Performance Record, and FAR 42.15, Contractor Performance Information.

I. A competitive range determination may be made after the initial evaluation. The competitive range will be limited to the number of highly qualified Offerors that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals. The

Government may conduct verbal and/or written discussions with all Offerors within the competitive range. The Competitive Range will be determined based on the following:

• Overall adjectival rating of the technical proposals for the IDIQ (Volume

IA) and Sample Task Order (Volume IB);

Pg. 145 of 149

• Evaluation of the business proposal for the Sample Task Order; and

• Past Performance information

Further, if the CO determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the Competitive Range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the CO may limit the number of proposals in the Competitive Range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated large business proposals and the most highly rated small business proposals.

J. The Government intends to reserve two (2) IDIQ contract awards for small businesses.

The evaluation criteria, as identified below, is the same for all Offerors. If there is adequate competition and technically acceptable offers are received from two or more small businesses, and the initial best value determination does not result in two or more contract awards for small businesses, the Government reserves the right, at its discretion to select one or more lower-rated and/or higher-priced small business proposals for award instead of a higher-rated and/or lower-priced non-small business proposal, if it is believed to be in the Government's interest.

K. Offerors excluded or otherwise eliminated from the Competitive Range will receive preaward notices in accordance with FAR 15.503. A debriefing request shall be made in accordance with FAR 15.505, Pre-award Debriefing of Offerors.

L. After announcement of the Competitive Range and upon completion of any discussions in accordance with FAR 15.3, a request for final proposal revisions will be issued to all Offerors still within the Competitive Range. If discussions are held, and after discussions have begun, an Offeror originally in the Competitive Range is no longer considered to be among the most highly rated Offerors being considered for award, that Offeror may be eliminated from the Competitive Range whether or not all material aspects of the proposal have been discussed, or whether or not the Offeror has been afforded an opportunity to submit a proposal revision.

M.3 TECHNICAL EVALUATION PROCESS

The Government anticipates that the evaluation of the IDIQ and Sample Task Order

(Volume IA and IB) proposals parts will be used to make a determination for the IDIQ umbrella awards.

The Government will conduct an evaluation of each proposal under the best value continuum where all evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price in accordance with FAR 15.304. IDIQ contract awards will be made to responsible Offerors whose proposal offers the best overall value to the Government in accordance with the evaluation methodology described herein. Best Value will be determined by a tradeoff technique that allows the

Government to consider award to other than the lowest priced/cost Offeror, or other than the highest technically rated Offeror in accordance with FAR 15.101-1.

Pg. 146 of 149

Pursuant to FAR 52.215-1, the Government intends to evaluate proposals and make award without discussions, however, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed necessary.

Below are the technical evaluation factors and adjectival ratings to be utilized for the best value determination.

The following technical factors are rated equally:

A. Technical Approach (Volume IA & IB)

The Offeror shall demonstrate a clear and concise presentation of the technical approaches to accomplish each area of concentration outlined in the Statement of

Work. The proposal shall reflect a substantive understanding of the scope, complexity and requirements associated with the project described in the

Statement of Work. In addition, the offeror shall provide sufficient detail to indicate a technical understanding of, and capability for, performing all the aspects of the SOW.

B. Personnel/Skill Mix (Volume IA & IB)

The Offeror shall demonstrate what resources (including, but not limited to, subcontractors, consultants, teaming arrangements) will be available to perform the potential range of task orders. The Offeror must identify the overall Project

Director and Key Personnel with related experience in which it is proposing to accomplish the potential range of tasks.

Each Key Personnel proposed by the Offeror shall indicate whether the person is:

• Currently employed by the Offeror;

• A planned hire; or

• Subcontractor

Of importance in evaluating personnel/skill mix will be the Offeror’s plan to ensure that:

• Key personnel assigned to awarded task orders are not over-extended to multiple task orders;

• Key personnel provide the proposed commitment for successful and timely performance of each awarded task order; and

• The Offeror’s process for advising the Government of any problems in regard to the commitment of assigned key personnel and its proposed corrective action.

C. Management Plan (Volume IA & IB)

The Offeror shall describe a management structure that provides a clear chain of responsibility, quality assurance monitoring, cost control, contract administration, and adequate, qualified staff resources. The Offeror shall demonstrate its ability

Pg. 147 of 149 to manage all aspects of the proposed efforts, including technical performance, time and delivery constraints, cost, status reporting, and subcontractor(s). Ability to identify, address, resolve and communicate problems (including conflict of interest), and to maintain a positive working relationship with CMS staff are important. The contractor (and proposed subcontractors) has appropriate and sufficient procedures and facilities to protect proprietary and confidential data and analysis related to this SOW.

D. Past Performance (Volume IA)

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s past performance in accordance with

FAR 15.305(a)(2) and CMS Clause Past Performance Evaluation Criteria.

CMS will evaluate the Offeror’s and proposed significant subcontractor(s) past performance information (See Section L, submission instructions, for definitions of relevant and significant subcontractor), which is expected to demonstrate the likelihood that the prospective contract will be performed successfully.

The CO reserves the right to limit its review of past performance information to what he/she has been determined to be relevant. The Offeror is advised that the

Contracting Officer, using sound business judgment, may consider Federal contract past performance to be more relevant than State Agencies, Local

Government or Commercial Customer performance assessments.

In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance, or for which information on past performance is not available, the Offeror’s Past

Performance may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably.

Past performance information may take into account predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement.

The applicable ratings (see definitions) for CMS’ evaluation will be assigned to each criterion as indicated:

The IDIQ technical proposal and Sample Task Order technical proposal evaluation will be a combined summary of strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses and/or deficiencies for the evaluation criteria Technical Approach to CMS’ Effort, Personnel/Skill Mix, and Management Plan evaluation criteria. One overall adjectival rating, based upon the combined assessment of both the IDIQ summary and Sample Task

Order, will be assigned for each evaluation factor, except past performance. The evaluation and rating of Past Performance will be based upon the IDIQ technical proposal only.

Pg. 148 of 149

RATINGS DEFINITIONS

Rating Definition

Excellent

Approach demonstrates a high level of competence and indicates a strong probability that all goals and objectives will be met and most will be exceeded.

Approach should result in superior attainment of one or more requirements or objectives and attainment of all major requirements and objectives

Approach has one or more significant strengths and/or strengths, but no significant weaknesses or deficiencies

Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Good

• Approach should result in attainment of all major requirements and objectives and indicates a reasonably good probability that all goals and objectives will be met and some will be exceeded.

• Approach has one or more significant strengths and/or strengths, but no significant weaknesses or deficiencies

• Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Acceptable

• Approach meets the minimum requirements of the SOW.

• Approach indicates a reasonably good probability that all goals and objectives will be met

• Approach may have significant strengths, strengths, weaknesses, and significant weaknesses, but no deficiencies

• Risk of unsuccessful performance is moderate.

Unacceptable

• Approach should result in unlikely attainment of one or more major requirements or objectives

• Approach may have significant strengths, strengths, weaknesses, and significant weaknesses but also has one or more deficiencies

• Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Note: A combination of related weaknesses may result in a Significant

Weakness, which would result in an elevated risk of performance.

M.4 BUSINESS PROPOSAL EVALUATION

CMS will evaluate the Business Proposal to assess CMS' level of confidence in the

Offeror's ability to deliver efficient, low risk performance at a fair and reasonable cost.

CMS will evaluate cost in this procurement by evaluating the costs of the Sample Task

Order cost proposal, including indirect rate history and accounting system adequacy. Cost is not the most important evaluation factor; however, as the degree of the equality of the non-cost factors increase then cost may be the determining factor. Further, after evaluation of the other factors, cost may be the deciding factor for selection, depending upon whether a highly evaluated technical proposal warrants the evaluated cost differential. CMS will conduct a cost realism analysis in accordance with FAR 15.404-

1(d) on the cost proposal for the Sample Task Order.

Pg. 149 of 149

The evaluation of options under FAR 52.217-8 will be accomplished by using the prices and rates offered in the last active option period to determine the price for a 6 month option period. Evaluation of the options will not obligate the government to exercise the option(s). For the purposes of source selection, the cost/price of this option period will not be considered in the offerors total proposed cost/price.

M.5 Other Administrative Data (Volume III)

I. Conflict of Interest Evaluation

a. In the event that Business Ethics, Organizational and Personal Conflicts of

Interest (hereinafter collectively or individually referred to as COI) and/or

Compliance information is required and/or submitted, it will be reviewed for the apparent successful Offeror, but not receive a score/rating. Business Ethics, Conflict of Interest and Compliance Submission by Offeror/Contractor, Attachment J.7 (and J.8 as applicable), and the information contained therein, will be reviewed by the Contracting Officer, in accordance with contract section H.3 of this solicitation, in order to make a determination whether the Offeror meets the COI requirements. Additionally, the Contracting Officer may use other information, besides that disclosed by the Offeror, in the Contracting Officer’s evaluation of conflicts of interest.

b. In accordance with FAR 9.504(e), “The contracting officer shall award the contract to the apparent successful Offeror unless a conflict of interest is determined to exist that cannot be avoided, neutralized or mitigated. Before determining to withhold award based on conflict of interest considerations, the contracting officer shall notify the contractor, provide the reasons therefor, and allow the contractor a reasonable opportunity to respond.”

c. CMS will not enter into a contract with an entity that CMS determines has, or has the potential for, an unresolved COI unless CMS determines that it is in the

Government’s best interest to do so. If the Contracting Officer finds that it is in the best interest of the United States to award the contract, notwithstanding an unresolved conflict of interest, a request for waiver shall be submitted by the

Contracting Officer in accordance with FAR 9.503.

d. In cases where conflicts of interest cannot be avoided, neutralized, or mitigated satisfactorily, or waived when it is in the Government’s best interest to do so, the

Contracting Officer shall preclude the Offeror from consideration for contract award.