DRFP SECTION M.pdf

80JSC020OME

Draft Request for Proposal

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1 SOURCE EVALUATION BOARD EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

An initial review of proposals will be conducted to determine acceptability of the proposals in accordance with NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) 1815.305-70, Identification of Unacceptable

Proposals. All unacceptable proposals will be eliminated from further evaluation.

Proposals will be evaluated by the Source Evaluation Board (SEB) in accordance with applicable regulations which include the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and the NASA FAR

Supplement. The SEB will carry out the evaluation activities and report its findings to the

Source Selection Authority (SSA) who is responsible for making the source selection decision.

The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose proposal represents the best value to the Government. This procurement shall be conducted utilizing a combination of mission suitability, past performance and price evaluation factors. The lowest price proposals may not necessarily receive an award; likewise, the highest technically rated proposals may not necessarily receive an award.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal using the factors and subfactors below.

Although proposals are organized by factors and subfactors, the Government will conduct an integrated evaluation to consider consistency among proposal information. The offerors are cautioned that a lack of consistency could lead to a weakness or deficiency in one or more of the factors or sub factors. Therefore, all aspects of the Offeror’s proposal will be considered during the evaluation process, including the Offeror’s proposed Model Contract.

The Government reserves the right and may award the IDIQ Fixed Price Task Order as proposed.

All other work will be authorized on IDIQ Task/Delivery Orders negotiated between the

Contractor and the Government.

(End of provision)

M.2 MISSION SUITABILITY FACTOR (VOLUME I)

The Mission Suitability factor and associated subfactors are used to assess the ability of the offeror to provide and administer the requirements of the Performance Work Statement. The

Mission Suitability subfactors and their corresponding weights reflecting relative importance are listed below. These weights are intended to be used as a guideline in the source selection decision-making process.

Management Approach TBD

Technical Approach TBD

Safety & Mission Assurance

Approach TBD

Small Business Utilization

Approach TBD

TOTAL 1000 points

Proposals will be evaluated and scored numerically based upon the subfactors set forth below.

Subfactors are evaluated in accordance with NFS 1815.305(a)(3)(A). The Government will interpret failure to provide sufficient detail and rationale, use of ambiguous terms, or inconsistencies noted during the evaluation of proposal information, as a lack of understanding on the part of the offeror and the offeror is notified that this may affect their Mission Suitability score. The offeror is also notified that a lack of resource realism may adversely affect their

Mission Suitability score and result in cost realism adjustments under the Price factor.

M.2.1 OVERALL MANAGEMENT APPROACH (MA) - MISSION SUITABILITY

SUBFACTOR 1

The Offeror’s Management Approach will be evaluated for understanding, completeness, effectiveness, and risk.

M.2.2 TECHNICAL APPROACH (TA) - MISSION SUITABILITY SUBFACTOR 2

The Offeror’s Technical Approach will be evaluated for understanding, completeness, effectiveness, and risk.

M.2.3 SAFETY AND MISSION ASSURANCE APPROACH

The Offeror’s Safety and Mission Assurance Approach will be evaluated understanding, completeness, effectiveness, and risk.

M.2.4 SMALL BUSINESS UTILIZATION (SBU) APPROACH - MISSION

SUITABILITY SUBFACTOR 4

The evaluation of Small Business Subcontracting and Commitment to the Small Business

Program applies to all Offerors, except that Small Businesses are not required to submit a

Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

The evaluation of SDB participation applies to all Offerors.

Small Business Subcontracting

The Small Business Subcontracting Plan, DRD-OME-B-001, will be evaluated in terms of reasonableness and soundness of the Offeror’s independent assessment to achieve the proposed overall subcontracting goals, in comparison to the Contracting Officer’s assessment of the appropriate subcontracting goals for this procurement. The Offeror’s

Small Business Subcontracting Plan will also be evaluated in terms of meeting the requirements of FAR 19.704, Subcontracting Plan Requirements. The evaluation of the

Small Business Subcontracting Plan will be on the basis of total contract value. Additionally, the Offeror’s rationale for proposing higher and/or lower goals than those determined appropriate by the Contracting Officer will also be evaluated. The information provided in the Small Business Subcontracting Tables, Attachment L-2, will be evaluated in addition to the supplied narrative.

Small businesses are not required to submit subcontracting plans. The Government will only evaluate the amount of work proposed to be performed by the small business prime and any small business at the first tier subcontract level. The proposed amount of work to be done by the prime small business and first tier small business subcontractors will be evaluated against the Contracting Officer’s assessment of the overall subcontracting goal for this procurement. Individual subcontracting goals by small business categories will not be evaluated for small business primes and their first tier subcontractors.

Commitment to the Small Business Program

The Government will evaluate the extent to which any work performed by a small business subcontractor(s) is identified as high technology. NASA also will evaluate the extent of commitment to use the subcontractor(s) (enforceable vs. non-enforceable commitments). The Government will evaluate the potential risks or impacts to performance throughout the site when subcontracting out such efforts and the associated mitigations of those risks.

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the identity of the small business subcontractor is specified in the proposal as well as the extent of the commitment to use small business and to support their development. (For small business offerors, NASA will evaluate this only if subcontracting opportunities exist.)

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s established or planned procedures and organizational structure for small business outreach, assistance, participation in the

Mentor Protégé program, counseling, market research and small business identification, and relevant purchasing procedures. (For large businesses offerors, this information should conform to its submitted Small Business Subcontracting Plan. For small business

Offerors, NASA will evaluate this only if subcontracting opportunities exist.)

M.3 PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR (VOLUME II)

(a) Past Performance indicates how well an offeror performed on earlier work and can be a significant indicator of how well it can be expected to perform the work at hand. The evaluation team will evaluate the past performance of the offeror and team members, as defined in

L.14.7(g).

(b) The Government will use past performance information from proposal data required by provisions of Section L, information obtained by the evaluation team based on communications with listed references, as well as data independently obtained from other Government and commercial sources, such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System and similar systems of other Governmental departments and agencies, Defense Contract Management

Agency (DCMA) channels, interviews with client program managers and Contracting Officers, and other sources known to the Government, including commercial sources. Offerors are to note that, in conducting this assessment, the Government reserves the right to use both data provided by the offeror and data obtained from other sources. In accordance with FAR 15.305, an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, a rating of neutral will be assigned.

(c) Three aspects are taken into consideration by the evaluation team when determining the offerors past performance confidence rating. These aspects are recency, relevance, and performance. The past performance of a prime or team member will be compared to the work proposed to be performed by that prime or team member, and weighted accordingly in assigning the overall past performance adjectival rating to the offeror. The past performance of an existing joint venture will be weighted more heavily than work performed by its joint venture partners separately. A description of each aspect is provided below.

Recency: Only contract period of performances within 10 years from the date of the OME original solicitation will be considered in the past performance evaluation. Within this 10 year period, more recent performance will receive greater consideration in the performance confidence assessment than those with more distant performance, assuming all other considerations to be equal. The

Government will not consider performance on any contract that has no documented performance history.

Relevance: If the contract is deemed recent, the Government will then determine the degree of relevance - i.e., level of pertinence - of the contract based on size, content, and complexity. The term “content” considers the contract’s scope of services, work, requirements, or supplies, in comparison to the requirements of this solicitation. Contracts that exhibit all specific trades/type of work required under the solicitation Performance Work Statement will be considered more relevant than contracts limited to specific trades only. The term complexity considers items such as: contract type, and requirements similar to the OME.

For purposes of this procurement, relevance will be assessed using the following definitions:

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same content, complexity, and size of effort this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved much of the content, complexity, and size of effort this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance contractual effort involved some of the content, complexity, and size of effort this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the content, complexity, and size of effort this solicitation requires.

This evaluation will consider what the corporate parent, affiliate, or other organizational entities (division(s), business units, segments) are responsible for and/or proposing to do on the OME effort and the specific resources (workforce, management, facilities, or other resources) to be employed and relied upon, such that the corporate parent, affiliate, or other organizational entity your company will have meaningful involvement in contract performance, in determining relevance. Offerors’ with past performance as part of a joint venture will be evaluated on the entirety of the work performed by the joint venture.

Performance: The Government will assess the performance quality, schedule adherence, cost control, small business subcontracting, and safety performance of the contracts which are considered to be recent and relevant (how well the contractor performed on the contracts). The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of all past performance information available, regardless of its source. The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. The

Government will consider the number and severity of problems, the effectiveness of corrective actions taken that have resulted in sustained improvements, and the overall record of past performance. For existing and newly-formed joint ventures, the past performance of each joint venture partner will be evaluated separately.

Also, for existing joint ventures, the past performance of the joint venture will be evaluated. This assessment will lead the Government to determine the quality of performance as either Excellent, Very Good, Satisfactory, Marginal, or

Poor/Unsatisfactory.

(d) Past Performance Confidence Rating. More recent and more relevant past performance will receive greater consideration in the performance confidence assessment than less recent or less relevant past performance. A performance confidence rating will be assessed at the overall factor level for Past Performance after evaluating aspects of the Offeror’s recent and relevant past performance.

Each of the adjective ratings below has a "performance" component and a "relevance" component as discussed above. As used in the ratings below, the term “pertinent” is equivalent to the term “relevant.” Offered Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings will be assigned as follows:

Very High Level of Confidence: The Offeror’s relevant past performance is of exceptional merit and is very highly pertinent to this acquisition, indicates exemplary performance in a timely, efficient, and economical manner and very minor (if any) problems with no adverse effect on overall performance. Based on the Offeror’s performance record, there is a very high level of confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

High Level of Confidence: The Offeror’s relevant past performance is highly pertinent to this acquisition; demonstrating very effective performance that would be fully responsive to contract requirements. Offeror’s past performance indicates that contract requirements were accomplished in a timely, efficient, and economical manner for the most part, with only minor problems that had little identifiable effect on overall performance. Based on the

Offeror’s performance record, there is a high level of confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Moderate Level of Confidence: The Offeror’s relevant past performance is pertinent to this acquisition, and it demonstrates effective performance. Performance was fully responsive to contract requirements; there may have been reportable problems, but with little identifiable effect on overall performance. Based on the Offeror’s performance record, there is a moderate level of confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Low Level of Confidence: The Offeror’s relevant past performance is at least somewhat pertinent to this acquisition, and it meets or slightly exceeds minimum acceptable standards. Offeror achieved adequate results; there may have been reportable problems with identifiable, but not substantial, effects on overall performance. Based on the

Offeror’s performance record, there is a low level of confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Changes to the Offeror’s existing processes may be necessary in order to achieve contract requirements.

Very Low Level of Confidence: The Offeror’s relevant past performance does not meet minimum acceptable standards in one or more areas; remedial action was required in one or more areas. Performance problems occurred in one or more areas which, adversely affected overall performance. Based on the Offeror’s performance record, there is a very low level of confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral: 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 may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance [see FAR 15.305(a) (2) (ii) and (iv)].

M.4 PRICE FACTOR (VOLUME III)

TBD

M.5 RESPONSIBILITY CONSIDERATIONS (VOLUME IV)

An Offeror must be considered to be responsible for award in accordance with FAR 9.104. The items listed below are important Responsibility Considerations; however, these items may not constitute all Responsibility Considerations that will be addressed by the Contracting Officer pursuant to FAR 9.104.

The Contracting Officer may choose to evaluate this information for the offerors in the

Competitive Range or the apparent Successful Offeror only. The Contracting Officer will only evaluate the information in Items A and B for the Apparent Successful Offeror.

(a) Organizational Conflicts of Interest Information

The Government will perform an analysis to ensure an Organizational Conflicts of Interest

(OCI) issue that cannot be mitigated does not exist. The OCI Plan will be assessed to verify the offeror is considered to be responsible for award. If it appears an OCI issue does exist that the Offeror’s plan failed to mitigate, the government must notify the contractor, provide the reasons therefore, and allow the contractor a reasonable opportunity to respond. The

Contracting Officer will make the final determination if the OCI issue exists and whether the issue can be mitigated.

(b) Key Personnel

The Offeror shall provide Attachment L-7 Key Personnel Resume for the Key Personnel identified in Section H NFS 1852.235-71, Key Personnel and Facilities.

M.6 MODEL CONTRACT (VOLUME V)

(a) The model contract will not be evaluated for selection purposes. It will, however, be reviewed to ensure that it was signed by a person authorized to commit the Offeror, that there is completion of all fill-ins, all pages of the contract are submitted in their entirety, and that it accurately captures the content as set forth in the Offeror’s proposal. Errors or inconsistencies in the Model Contract may result in an offeror being removed from consideration for award.

(b) The Government reserves the right to incorporate the Offeror’s documentation (e.g.

plans) submitted in response to Data Requirements Descriptions in the RFP and/or information in a clause fill-in prior to execution of the contract. This may result in the renumbering of contract pages. The Government may also make other minor clerical and purely administrative changes to the Offeror’s model contract (e.g. insert the contract number, insert the value of obligated funding at contract award), prior to executing the contract. The contractor agrees that such changes shall be construed as administrative and that they will not be construed as a counter offer.

(END OF SECTION)

Accessibility Report

Filename:

SECTION M.pdf

Report created by:

Organization:

[Enter personal and organization information through the Preferences > Identity dialog.]

Summary

The checker found no problems in this document.

Needs manual check: 0

Passed manually: 2

Failed manually: 0

Skipped: 0

Passed: 30

Failed: 0

Detailed Report

Document

Rule Name Status Description

Accessibility permission flag Passed Accessibility permission flag must be set

Image-only PDF Passed Document is not image-only PDF

Tagged PDF Passed Document is tagged PDF

Logical Reading Order Passed manually Document structure provides a logical reading order

Primary language Passed Text language is specified

Title Passed Document title is showing in title bar

Bookmarks Passed Bookmarks are present in large documents

Color contrast Passed manually Document has appropriate color contrast

Page Content

Rule Name Status Description

Tagged content Passed All page content is tagged

Tagged annotations Passed All annotations are tagged

Tab order Passed Tab order is consistent with structure order

Character encoding Passed Reliable character encoding is provided

Tagged multimedia Passed All multimedia objects are tagged

Screen flicker Passed Page will not cause screen flicker

Scripts Passed No inaccessible scripts

Timed responses Passed Page does not require timed responses

Navigation links Passed Navigation links are not repetitive

Forms

Rule Name Status Description

Tagged form fields Passed All form fields are tagged

Field descriptions Passed All form fields have description

Alternate Text

Rule Name Status Description

Figures alternate text Passed Figures require alternate text

Nested alternate text Passed Alternate text that will never be read

Associated with content Passed Alternate text must be associated with some content

Hides annotation Passed Alternate text should not hide annotation

Other elements alternate text Passed Other elements that require alternate text

Tables

Rule Name Status Description

Rows Passed TR must be a child of Table, THead, TBody, or TFoot

TH and TD Passed TH and TD must be children of TR

Headers Passed Tables should have headers

Regularity Passed Tables must contain the same number of columns in each row and rows in each column

Summary Passed Tables must have a summary

Lists

Rule Name Status Description

List items Passed LI must be a child of L

Lbl and LBody Passed Lbl and LBody must be children of LI

Headings

Rule Name Status Description

Appropriate nesting Passed Appropriate nesting

Back to Top