Section M 02-26-20.pdf

SECTION M. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M1.0. SOURCE SELECTION

M1.1. General.

M1.1.1. Solicitation Requirements, Terms, and Conditions. Offerors are required to address all solicitation requirements, terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical/management requirements, in addition to those identified as factors or subfactors.

Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being ineligible for award. In response to this RFP, no terms, conditions, or assumptions will be entertained. If terms, conditions, or assumptions are included in a proposal, the proposal may be excluded on grounds that it failed to comply with instructions.

M1.1.2. Basis for Contract Award.

This is a best value trade off source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition

Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition

Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and the DISA Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DARS).

These regulations are available electronically at http://www.ditco.disa.mil/hq/aqinfo.asp and http://farsite.hill.af.mil. The Government will select the best overall offeror, based on integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below.

M1.1.3. Evaluation.

The technical proposal shall include all information the offeror wants the Government to consider and evaluate regarding the offeror’s ability to perform all required tasks and conform to all required terms and conditions. The best value determination will be based on the stated evaluation factors.

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions or seek clarifications if the Contracting Officer (KO) determines they are necessary. In the event issues pertaining to a proposed contract cannot be resolved to the KO’s satisfaction, the Government reserves the right to withdraw and cancel the proposed contract. In such event, offerors will be notified in writing. In the event a competitive range is established and the KO 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 KO may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition.

M1.1.4. Evaluation of Options.

The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the base period. The offeror shall submit pricing for the base period and all option periods, including option pricing for an additional six-month period that may be authorized IAW FAR 52.217-8. The pricing proposal should include a separate line item for the http://www.ditco.disa.mil/hq/aqinfo.asp http://farsite.hill.af.mil/ additional six-month period IAW FAR 52.217-8. These prices shall be identical to the proposed pricing in the six months prior to expiration of the base period, or the final option period, if option periods are present. The total evaluated price will consist of the contractor’s proposed price for the base period, all option periods, the option pricing for the additional six-month period, and surge pricing, if requested. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

M1.1.5. Number of Contracts to be Awarded.

The Government intends to award one Basic contract for the CTSS IV Program. In addition, the

Government anticipates awarding Task Order 0001, concurrently with the award of the IDIQ.

The Government reserves the right to make no award.

M1.1.6. Rejection of Offers.

The Government may reject any proposal that takes exception to the terms of the solicitation.

M2.0. EVALUATION FACTORS

M2.1. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors. The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal.

Phase I:

Factor 1. Evidence of Satisfactory Past Experience (Pass/Fail).

Phase II:

Factor 2. Technical

Factor 3. Small Business Participation

Factor 4. Cost/Price Factor

M2.1.1. Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors

The relative importance of each factor and subfactor is as follows: Factor 2 - Technical

(including all Subfactors) is significantly more important than Factor 1 - Past Experience and

Factor 3 - t Small Business Participation. Within Factor 2 - Technical, the Subfactors are of equal importance.

In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), all evaluation factors other than cost/price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price.

M3.0. Phase I

M 3.1. Factor 1. Evidence of Satisfactory Past Experience. (Limited to 10 Pages) The

Government will verify the Offerors recent, relevant, and satisfactory past experience, as defined below.

M3.2 Recency

An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be eligible for consideration, the cited effort for the prime offeror and the prime offeror’s teaming partners, joint ventures, and/or significant subcontractors must have been performed within five years prior to the original issuance of the solicitation, or, for ongoing efforts, must have been in place at least one year before the original proposal due date. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

M3.3 Relevancy

The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained. A relevancy determination of the offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the work defined below. The past performance information forms and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance.

Relevancy is defined in this context as similarity of product/service/support/complexity and scope of this effort, which is represented by the various historical and workload information located in the Bidder’s Library.

Relevant work is defined as a contract which meets all three criteria below:

(a) Equal to or exceeds $20 Million per year of contract performance. This amount can be spread over multiple contracts, but the work must have occurred in the same fiscal year. The scope of the contractual action used for this example must be similar to the scope of CTSS IV. If non-relevant work was also accomplished under the reference contract, offeror’s shall not include the “other than” work in the dollar totals or claim it as relevant experience.

(b) Scope includes at least 6 of the 11 Functional Task Areas.

1. Task 2: Communications Management and Planning

2. Task 3: Communications Engineering

3. Task 4: Knowledge Operations Management

4. Task 5: Cyber System Operations

5. Task 6: Cyber Transport

6. Task 7: Client Systems

7. Task 8: Cyber Surety

8. Task 9: Radio Frequency (RF) Transmission Systems

9. Task 10: Spectrum Operations

10. Task 11: Cable and Antenna System

11. Task 12: Logistics

(c) Work was performed in Southwest Asia (SWA) for DoD.

Similar scope work is not restricted to a single contract; but all efforts must be recent, as defined above. The relative magnitude (dollar value) and number of performance locations supported under a single contract effort will be considered in determining relevancy.

M3.4 Performance Quality Assessment

This data shall be submitted for at least one, but no more than three of the most current and relevant contracts. If more than the minimum required contracts are submitted, the government will indiscriminately pick the three references; no additional references will be considered for review.

The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts. For each recent, relevant past performance citation reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed for acceptability or unacceptability.

Past performance information may be obtained from Past Performance Information Sheets and

Past Performance Questionnaires along with any other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal

Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic

Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Fee Determining Officials; and the Defense Contract Management

Agency.

M3.5 Overall Past Performance Rating

As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive an overall assessment rating of Acceptable/Unacceptable/Unknown (Neutral). The resulting rating is made at the past performance factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance.

If an offeror’s experience is not found to be Unacceptable or Neutral, the offeror’s technical proposal will not be evaluated and is not eligible for award.

TABLE M1- PAST PERFORMANCE ACCEPTABLE/UNACCEPTABLE RATING

METHOD

Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Unacceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown (Neutral) No recent/relevant performance record is available, or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that acceptability cannot be determined.

M4.0-Phase II

M4.1 Factor 2. Technical. The Government will evaluate technical proposals of all Offerors determined responsive to the solicitation, who receive a rating of “Acceptable” within Phase I, Factor 1. The Technical Factor consists of two subfactors, (1) Program Management and

Staffing, and (2) Technical Approach and Mission Understanding.

The Technical Factor will be evaluated using a combined technical rating and risk rating. The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings. Combined technical/risk evaluations will utilize the combined technical/risk ratings listed in Table M1.

TABLE M1. COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

Color Rating Description

BLUE Outstanding

Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

PURPLE Good

Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

GREEN Acceptable

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

YELLOW Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

RED Unacceptable

Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

M4.1.1 Subfactor 1. Program Management and Staffing. The Government will assess the degree to which the offeror’s solution:

M4.1.1.1 Criteria 1 (Basic (IDIQ) SOW Paragraph 6.1 and Task Order 0001 SOW Paragraph

6.1.7.1.):

(1) Demonstrates a logical and appropriate overarching IDIQ program and Task Order (TO) management strategy, to include management and control of subcontractors, to ensure successful contract performance.

(2) Details the proposed organizational structure, functional alignments, key positions/personnel, lines of communication/authority, and processes to ensure quality, security and other functions key to successful contract performance.

M4.1.1.2. Criteria 2 (Basic SOW Paragraph 6.1 and Task Order 0001 SOW Paragraph

6.1.7.2.):

(1) Demonstrates a logical and appropriate approach to recruit, on-board, and retain fully qualified personnel at all performance locations for the life of the IDIQ.

(2) Displays detailed explanation of compensation and/or benefits packages and any other incentives to minimize turnover and retain highly qualified personnel.

(3) Details strategy and processes effectively to manage vacancies, ensure continuity of operations, and mitigate disruption of services during personnel absences or turnover (e.g., sickness, leave, or voluntary/involuntary termination).

(4) Explains staffing and retention risks (e.g., security clearances, certifications, poaching, etc.), and provides appropriate risk handling strategies.

M4.1.1.3 Criteria 3 (Basic SOW Paragraph 6 and Task Order 0001 SOW, Paragraph 6.1):

(1) Demonstrates a logical and appropriate mix of labor categories, skill levels, and staffing levels to meet TO 0001 SOW requirements for Task 1, Program Management. As part of this criteria, the Government will be evaluating the makeup of the proposed Program Management

Office (PMO) staff. Contractors shall identify what positions will be included in the PMO staff, what location they will work in, and the tasks that each member of the PMO staff will perform.

(2) Details the responsibilities, minimum qualifications (e.g., security clearance, certifications, education, experience, and knowledge, skills, and abilities) and staffing levels, by labor category and skill level, aligned to satisfy the functional TO 0001 SOW tasks as described in SOW paragraph 6.1.

M4.1.2. Subfactor 2. Technical Approach and Mission Understanding. The Government will assess the degree to which the offeror’s solution:

M4.1.2.1. Criteria 1 (Basic SOW Paragraph 6 and TO 0001 SOW Paragraph 6.1.7.1(c)):

Demonstrates a clear understanding of OCONUS deployment/travel processes and requirements, and capability to deploy personnel to/from locations Southwest Asia (including designated war/combat zone locations) effectively for the life of the IDIQ.

M4.1.2.2. Criteria 2 (Basic SOW Paragraph 6.1.13 and TO 0001 SOW Paragraph 6.1.13): (1)

(1) Demonstrates an executable 90-day CTSS-IV and Task Order-01 Transition-In Plan IAW

Attachment 2-SOW-TO 0001 Paragraph 6.1.13 to ensure no disruption of service. Details the offeror’s processes and procedures necessary to provide continuity of mission support and contract performance from contract award through performance start to ensure no disruption of service. Exhibits a logical and appropriate::

- phased approach for transitioning in the contractor’s Corporate Structure, overarching

Program Management, overarching Quality Management, and workforce;

- timeline to ensure workforce is trained, certified and qualified to assume all SOW tasks and responsibilities from the incumbent by performance start;

- processes and procedures necessary to mobilize the workforce to all locations specified in the SOW; and

- Time Phased Labor Matrix phase-in plan.

(2) Addresses transiting/phase-in risks, and provide appropriate handling strategies. Details any assumptions the Offeror has regarding roles and responsibilities of the incumbent contractor, and information the Offeror requires from the incumbent contractor.

M4.1.2.3. Criteria 3 (Basic SOW Paragraph 6 and TO 0001 SOW Paragraph 6 (inclusive of all subparagraphs)):

(1) Demonstrates a logical and appropriate approach for the effective execution of TO 0001

SOW requirements and support to the USAFCENT CTSS mission.

(2) Details how the Offeror intends to meet performance objectives and requirements, rather than simply rephrase or restate the TO 0001 SOW.

M4 Factor 3. Small Business Participation.

The Government will use the following ratings for the utilization of Small Business

Participation:

Table M2. SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION RATINGS

Adjectival

Rating

Description Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives.

Unacceptable Proposal does not indicate an adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives.

The Government will assess the offeror’s submissions to this factor for adequacy of the proposed

Small Business Participation Plan. To be acceptable, the Offeror shall provide a complete and responsive small business participation plan that considers all federal designated small business categories. In accordance with 13 C.F.R. 125.3(g)(3), a small business concern submitting an offer will be rated Acceptable for this Small Business Participation Factor, even if they elect not to submit any information in connection with this factor.

M5 Factor 4. Cost.

The Offeror’s cost/price proposal will be evaluated for award purposes based on the total price proposed for Task Order-0001 to include the one-year base period, four one-year option periods, and the option pricing for the additional six-month period IAW FAR 52.217-8. FAR 52.217-8 authorizes the government to require continued performance of any services within the limits and at the rates specified in the contract. The pricing proposal should include a separate line item for the additional six-month period IAW FAR 52.217-8. These prices shall be identical to the proposed pricing in the six months prior to expiration of the base period, or the final option period, if option periods are present. The Government will calculate a total proposed cost/price for the CTSS IV Pricing Template by applying Government estimated labor hours for each year of contract performance to each offeror’s proposed fully burdened labor rates for each labor category at both Government and Contractor sites. The estimated labor hours used for evaluation purposes will not be provided to the offerors until after award. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options. Note: TO 0001 will be awarded with, or shortly after, the basic contract award.

The cost/price proposals will be evaluated using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR

15.404 in order to determine if they are complete, reasonable, and realistic. Reasonableness is established through cost and price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404. For a price/cost proposal to be complete, all solicitation requirements shall be priced, figures correctly calculated, and costs are presented within the mandatory CTSS IV Pricing Template provided in

Section L, Attachment L6. The Government reserves the right to remove an incomplete proposal from consideration for award. Cost reimbursable contract line item numbers (CLINs) will be evaluated for realism pursuant to FAR 15.404-1(d) to determine the probable cost of performance for each Offeror. The probable cost shall be used for purposes of evaluation to determine the best value.

Travel/Other Direct Costs (ODC): Due to the likely inability of any offeror to accurately estimate travel and material/equipment purchases associated with this requirement, the

Government is providing plug numbers to be used by all offerors when proposing ODCs for travel/material/equipment. Offerors are instructed to propose plug numbers for ODCs in the following EXACT amounts. However, note that actual incurrence of the costs shall be authorized by the Government PM or COR in writing prior to incurrence and travel and will be paid IAW FAR 31.205-46. No profit or fee will be authorized for ODCs. Applicable burdens

(e.g. G&A) may apply to ODCs IAW the contractor’s accounting practices.

TO 0001 CLIN x003 ODC Breakout:

Period Travel ODC

Material/Equipment

ODC Total ODC

Transition

Base Period 0 0 0

Option Period 1 0 0 0

Option Period 2 0 0 0

Option Period 3 0 0 0

Option Period 4 0 0 0

6-Month Ext 0 0 0

Plug numbers will be provided for ODC Uplift line items.

Plug numbers are provided in the Cost/Price templates. The Government will verify plug numbers are utilized as directed and amounts appropriately included in proposed pricing. The proposed ODC amounts for travel/material/equipment shall be the EXACT amounts listed above and provided in the Cost/Price template. Any indirect costs associated with travel/material/equipment shall not be added to the plug numbers, as they are already included.

A proposal that fails to bid the plug numbers EXACTLY as provided may be excluded from further consideration. Note: should there be additional ODCs associated with Cost Reimbursable

LABOR, these costs must be SEPARATELY identified and will be included in the offeror's total evaluated price. Any additional ODCs proposed must be broken out in sufficient detail to identify the methodology used to derive the proposed costs. In addition, the offeror shall provide supporting documents to substantiate the proposed costs. Additional ODCs that are not proposed, or otherwise not adequately substantiated, will be considered unallowable costs and under no circumstance be reimbursed to the Offeror.