A- 02 GPS Attachment 0003 - Section M - Draft for Final 16 Oct 2024.pdf

Controlled – Collaboration/Controlled Unclassified Information – Secured Procurement Sensitive

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

GLOBAL PROTECTIVE SERVICES (GPS) MULTIPLE-AWARD INDEFINITE-DELIVERY

INDEFINITE-QUANTITY (MA-IDIQ)

ARMY CONTRACTING COMMAND – ROCK ISLAND (ACC-RI)

FINAL V1.0 16 OCT 2024

W519TC-24-R-0011– SECTION M

M-1 GENERAL INFORMATION

M-1.1 Basis for Award This is a best value source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3 and DOD Source Selection Procedures, as supplemented. In this procurement, the Government will determine best value based on an objective assessment and validation of the Highest Technically Rated Offerors (HTRO). Price will not be evaluated during this source selection (FAR 15.304(c)(1)(ii)(A)), therefore tradeoffs will not be used. Price will be evaluated at the individual task order level.

M-1.1.1 Number of Contracts to be Awarded. The Government intends to award one contract to each and all qualifying Offerors (FAR 15.304(c)(1)(ii)(A)), who are also determined responsible IAW FAR Part 9. Qualifying Offerors must have a Minimum Technical Threshold Rating (MTTR) of at least 57,600 points (80% of the maximum score). The Offeror’s score is automatically totaled in cell K30 of the Self-Scoring Matrix, based on the Offeror’s input to column J of the matrix.

M-1.1.2 IDIQ Ceiling. The overall ceiling of the IDIQ is estimated at $10,330,446,190.46 for ten years. The total value of all task orders awarded under the IDIQ will not exceed this amount. Funding will be determined at the individual task order level.

M-1.1.3 Minimum Guarantee Task Order. An initial task order will be awarded to each IDIQ contractor for CDRL Submission as outlined in Attachment 0007 CRDL Matrix. The dollar value is set at $1,000.00. There is no guarantee of any task order beyond the minimum task order.

M-1.2 Proposal Compliance and Offeror Responsibility

M-1.2.1 Proposal Substantiation. Unsubstantiated or misleading claims for any Prior Technical Experience (PTE) or Past Performance evaluation element could result in the Government determining that the Offeror’s proposed self-rated score is artificially inflated. If this were to occur, the Government will unilaterally downward adjust the Offeror’s score, potentially down to zero points.

M-1.2.2 Proposal Compliance. Offerors shall meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, submission requirements, representations and certifications, and other instructions identified within the solicitation. Offerors shall comply with content required within each of the proposal sections. Failure to comply with any requirement of the solicitation may result in the Government determining the Offeror to be unacceptable and ineligible for award.

The Government will review each Offeror’s proposal documentation to ensure all required documentation was provided in response to the solicitation. The Government will rely on the documentation provided by the Offeror to facilitate the Contracting Officer’s determination of proposal compliance. The Contracting Officer will not add to or assume anything about the Offeror’s proposal; a proposal must stand on its own merits to be considered compliant.

M-1.2.3 Offeror Responsibility. No award shall be made to an Offeror unless the

Contracting Officer determines the Offeror to be responsible. To be determined responsible, an Offeror shall meet the general standards described in FAR 9.104-

1. The Contracting Officer may consider information provided within any section of the proposal, and other information, not limited to proposal information, when making the determination of responsibility.

M-2 EVALUATION FACTORS AND METHODOLOGY

The Government will begin by confirming that the proposal has been submitted in accordance with (IAW) Attachment 0002 Section L3 – Proposal Content. The Government will then verify that the Offeror has met or exceeded the Minimum Technical Threshold Rating (MTTR) IAW the Attachment 0006 – HTRO Self-Scoring Matrix. Proposals that are found to be compliant in both content and MTTR will then be evaluated on a “Go/No Go” basis using the provided Past Performance Information (PPI) sheet. Quality will be evaluated (IAW FAR 15.304(c)(2)) in this source selection through consideration of the Offeror’s PTE as a factor. A three-step process will be used to determine which Offeror’s proposals are responsive and qualified to receive an award. The following is a graphic representation of the initial proposal validation process:

M-2.1 HTRO Step One – Initial Review of Technical Self-Score Upon receipt of proposals, The Government will review the entire proposal for compliance with Section L-3. Once proposal compliance is verified, the Government will review each Offeror’s technical self-score to ensure it meets the MTTR of 57,600, or 80% of the total available points. Only those proposals that meet or exceed the MTTR will be further considered for award. Subsequently, the Government will review the Offeror’s PPI sheet for relevant past performance as detailed below in M-2.2.3 Offerors whose proposals meet the past performance criteria will then be evaluated for their pre-award documentation as detailed below in M-2.3, if the offerors proposals who meet the pre-award documentation will be evaluated on their responses in the Self-Scoring Matrix. Any proposals received with a self-score less than the MTTR will not be evaluated.

Any work samples that do not meet the criteria of Attachment 0002 Sections L-3.3.1-L-

3.3.3 will either be eliminated or have non-compliant pages removed prior to evaluation.

Once the Government has determined the proposal to be responsive, the Government will then evaluate and validate the Offeror’s PTE.

M-2.2 HTRO Past Performance Information Sheet (PPI) Offerors shall submit a PPI sheet in the format provided and complete the entire PPI sheet in its entirety. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s PPI to ascertain the probability of successfully performing the requirements of the Solicitation and corresponding attachments.

M-2.2.1. Offerors should focus their PPI sheet input on their work as a Prime contractor or major Subcontractor on contracts similar in size and scope to the requirements identified in the solicitation, its amendments, and Attachments and Exhibits, most notably the Attachment 0001 Performance Work Statement (PWS). The Government defines ‘Major Subcontractor’ as being a party to a contract wherein the Offeror performed at least ten percent of the overall effort and do not include labor brokers. The Government will evaluate Offeror past performance within two years of the date of the solicitation.

M-2.2.2 The U.S. Government (USG) reserves the right to conduct further evaluation of Past Performance by reaching out to individuals listed on the Offeror's Past Performance Information (PPI) sheet, reviewing Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) and Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) for any negative performance metrics. Additionally, the USG may contact individuals and/or organizations that were not listed on the PPI sheet as part of the evaluation process.

M-2.2.3 Past Performance Information sheets will be evaluated on a Go/No-Go basis, any No-Go as detailed below the offeror will not be further evaluated on their pre-award information or self-scoring matrix.

Format: The offeror must submit the PPI sheet in the requested format. Any deviation from the format will result in a "No Go."

Completeness: The PPI sheet must be completed in its entirety, with all required information and documentation. Any missing or incomplete information will result in a "No Go."

Relevant experience: The offeror must demonstrate relevant experience in the specified areas and provide enough detail and evidence to support their claims.

Insufficient information will result in a "No Go."

Timeliness: The offeror's past performance must be within the past two years. Any performance older than two years will not be considered.

Compliance: The offeror's past performance must comply with all applicable laws, regulations, and contractual requirements. Any non-compliance will result in a "No Go."

Integrity: The offeror must demonstrate a history of integrity and ethical behavior. Any evidence of fraud, corruption, or other unethical behavior will result in a "No Go."

Performance: The offeror must demonstrate a history of successful performance on similar projects or contracts. Any evidence of poor performance will result in a "No Go."

M-2.3 Pre-award documentation (EEO Clearance and Facilities Clearance)

The USG will evaluate Contractors pre-award documentation as detailed in Section L-

2.6 & L-3.1.2.

M-2.3.1 Secret Facilities Clearance: The USG will evaluate the proposal to ensure that the offeror and any subcontractors involved in the project have a current US or NATO Facility clearance at the SECRET level in accordance with DoDD 5220.22, National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual. This evaluation will include reviewing the offeror's proof of a current Facility clearance at the time of proposal submission.

For newly formed partnerships, joint ventures, or limited liability companies, the USG will review documentation showing that all partners or member companies of the partnership currently possess the required Facility Clearance. If the USG determines that the offeror or any subcontractors do not currently possess a SECRET level clearance, the proposal will be deemed non-compliant and will not be considered for award.

M-2.3.2 Ability to obtain a Top-Secret Facilities Clearance: The USG will review the offeror's security plan, which must outline the measures the offeror will take to protect classified information and meet the requirements for a Top Secret or NATO Cosmic Top-Secret clearance. This plan should include details on physical security measures, personnel security measures, and information security measures. The USG will also verify the offeror's infrastructure, such as secure facilities, networks, and systems, to ensure they meet the requirements for the clearance. Additionally, the USG will check the offeror's security protocols, including access control measures, incident response plans, and security training programs. The USG will also verify the offeror's personnel, including background checks, security clearance investigations, and personnel security training. Finally, the USG will verify the offeror's compliance with security regulations and their ability to maintain a high level of security throughout the duration of the project.

Go:

• The offeror has a comprehensive security plan that outlines measures to protect classified information and meet the requirements for a Top Secret or NATO Cosmic Top-Secret clearance.

• The offeror has secure facilities, networks, and systems in place to meet the requirements for the clearance.

• The offeror has security protocols, including access control measures, incident response plans, and security training programs, in place.

• The offeror has personnel who have undergone background checks, security clearance investigations, and personnel security training.

• The offeror has a history of compliance with security regulations and has the ability to maintain a high level of security throughout the duration of the project.

No-Go:

• The offeror does not have a comprehensive security plan that outlines measures to protect classified information and meet the requirements for a Top Secret or NATO Cosmic Top-Secret clearance.

• The offeror does not have secure facilities, networks, or systems in place to meet the requirements for the clearance.

• The offeror does not have security protocols, including access control measures, incident response plans, and security training programs, in place.

• The offeror does not have personnel who have undergone background checks, security clearance investigations, and personnel security training.

• The offeror does not have a history of compliance with security regulations and does not have the ability to maintain a high level of security throughout the duration of the project.

M-2.4 HTRO Step Two – Scoring Validation The HTRO methodology requires the Offeror to submit a self-rated score based on the objective criteria described in Section L. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s PTE (Section L-3.3) by validating the proposed Self Scoring Matrix (GPS Attachment 0014 ((Section L Appendix B)). The Government will validate the Offeror’s self-rated scores using the Offeror’s Cross Reference Matrix (see GPS Attachment 0014 Cross reference Matrix (Section L Appendix C)) and the work samples provided. If the work sample is written in a language other than English, it must be translated by a certified third-party translator. Both the original non-English version and the certified translated copy must be provided. If the Government is unable to find the substantiating information within the referenced page, paragraph, table, etc. of the work sample, the Government will not search further for the substantiating information. If the Government is unable to validate that Offeror’s self-rated score based on the work samples and Cross Reference Matrix, the Government will unilaterally downward adjust the Offeror’s self-rated score, potentially down to zero points. The Government will only adjust the Offeror’s self-rated score downward, not upward. Such adjustments are within the sole discretion of the Government and are based upon the substantiation of the self-rated score provided by the Offeror. The Government-validated PTE score must demonstrate qualifying experience with a MTTR of at least 80% of the maximum score, which is 57,600 points totaled on the Self-Scoring Matrix.

END