AFLDP-IT_BPA_Attachment_3_Evaluation_Criteria.pdf

Evaluation Criteria

1. The Government intends to establish a single award Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA).

This Request for Quote is being issued as a Total Small Business Set-Aside using NAICS code 541519, Other Computer Related Services. This a Blanket Purchase Agreement being awarded under FAR Part 13 procedures utilizing Streamlined Evaluation of Offers as described in FAR 12.602 for commercial services and products and FAR 13.106-2 Evaluation of Quotations or Offers. The Government will award to the offeror with the lowest price technically acceptable (LPTA). The Government does not have an obligation to award a purchase order as a result of establishing this Blanket Purchase Agreement.

The factors that will be used to evaluate proposals are as follows and as expounded below: Technical Acceptability and Price.

(a) The evaluation does not permit tradeoffs between price and non-price factors. Award will be made to the responsible offeror that submits a proposal that 1) conforms to the requirements of the solicitation; 2) receives a rating of “Acceptable” on the Technical Approach evaluation factor; and 3) submits the proposal with the lowest TEP, provided that the TEP is not unbalanced and is determined to be fair and reasonable. This will be rack and stacked by the lowest to highest price and evaluation of technical acceptability will be begin at the lowest price. If they are in adherence to all the contents contained within the solicitation and are technically acceptable, award will be made to them and no other offers will be evaluated.

(b) Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as factors or sub-factors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions unacceptable and the proposal, therefore, ineligible for award.

(c) The procedures in FAR Part 15 are not mandatory under a FAR 13.106-2 Award.

However, this will be evaluated on price and other factors and some FAR Part 15 procedures may be used as detailed in this solicitation. The Government will initiate concurrent Technical Acceptability evaluations on all proposals

(d) The government will not hold discussions as part of this award. Upon request, the contracting officer can furnish the information described below to unsuccessful offerors in solicitations using Simplified Acquisition Procedures in FAR Part 13. Please note that this is the establishment of Blanket Purchase Agreement and the prices provided are in relation to the ceiling not a contract and an obligation to award a purchase order for such amount.

• The items, quantities, and any stated unit prices of each award. If the number of items or other factors makes listing any stated unit prices impracticable at that time, only the total agreement price need be furnished in the notice.

(e) The BPA may be awarded to the offeror:

(i) That is deemed responsible in accordance with FAR Part 9.1, Responsible

Prospective Contractors, as supplemented;

(ii) That has submitted a proposal that conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by the Instructions to Offerors (ITO) of this solicitation);

AND

(iii)That has been determined, based on the evaluation factors and sub-factors, to represent the proposal with the lowest TEP. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective.

Therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

(f) A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the timeframe for acceptance specified in the proposal, shall result in the establishment of the BPA. A purchase order then may be awarded as a result of that agreement.

EVALUATION FACTORS

FACTOR I - Gateway: The Government’s technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals on a recent/not recent, relevant/not relevant basis, assigning one of the ratings described in the table below for each sub-factor. Any sub-factor evaluated as ‘Not Recent/Not Relevant will render the entire proposal unacceptable and, therefore, ineligible for award. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable will be considered for award.

Rating Definition

Recent Past performance is determined to be ongoing projects or projects completed within the last three (3) years from the date of issuance of this RFQ and for a minimum of six (6) months.

Not Recent Anything later than three (3) years from the date of issuance of this RFQ and/or less than six (6) months of performance.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Proposals shall be evaluated against the following technical sub-factors:

Sub-factor 1: Verified CMMI Level 2 Certification

Description: Offerors shall provide proof of CMMI Level 2 certification that includes company name and appraisal ID.

Measure of Merit: Only the prime contractor will need to obtain and hold CMMI level 2 certification prior to proposal submission as the oversight authority/overall manager of the contract. CMMI level 2 certification must be held by time of proposal submission. Quotes from offerors without this certification will be removed from consideration and further evaluation.

Sub-factor 2: Past Performance

Description: The Offeror shall provide past performance information on at least three (3) recent contracts/work efforts, but no more than five (5). To be recent, the contract (or subcontract) must have been performed or be ongoing within the past three (3) years from the date of issuance of this RFQ and executed for a minimum of a six (6) month period. Past Performance outside this given timeframe will not be evaluated. Offeror’s quote shall provide examples of past performance that demonstrate a likelihood of success in the contemplated effort.

Measure of Merit: This sub-factor is met when the offer addresses and provides a sound approach/methodology and rationale for the following:

a) Evaluation of past performance information will include predecessor companies or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to the acquisition. Offeror should consider subcontractor past performance submission if their quote includes teaming/subcontracting efforts. The government reserves the right to check performance ratings in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) and may use that information in the evaluation of past performance.

b) The Offeror shall furnish the following information for each contract/work effort submitted:

1. Company/Division Name

2. Description of service and a detailed explanation of relevance to this requirement and shall reference the sections of the PWS to which it relates

3. Contracting Agency/Customer point of contact or reference having knowledge of contract performance

4. Contract number

5. Contract type and dollar value (per year cost and life cycle cost)

6. Total number of FTEs utilized for the effort

7. Designation as a prime or subcontractor

8. Period of Performance

9. Completion date

10. Verified, up-to-date name, address, & telephone number of the

Contracting Officer

11. Comments regarding compliance with contract terms and conditions

12. Comments regarding any known performance deemed unacceptable to the customer, or not in accordance with the contract terms and conditions.

FACTOR II – Technical Approach: The Technical Approach your company will take to address the performance requirements as defined in the PWS shall be delivered in an oral presentation to the Government.

Under this factor, the Government will evaluate the Schedule contractor’s technical approach based on the following:

i. Configuration and Software Engineering Approach

a. Soundness of Offeror's approach to understanding supporting IT solutions

(web-based) through a low code platform solution, such as OutSystems, with dynamic requirements to facilitate the quantification and tracking of DAF human resources, force development, education, training, and experience for both officer, civilian, and enlisted Airmen across the Total Force.

b. Offeror’s approach should demonstrate a sound approach in being able to effectively communicate with stakeholders, of limited software engineering background, to ensure software development requirements are understood.

The offeror shall establish a clear understanding regarding principles of Agile development and clearly articulate software velocity development capabilities and subsequent test/release plans. Offerors should consider the complexity of integration across different systems with familiarity to DoD Information & Human Resource platforms.

ii. Management Approach

a) The Offeror shall provide a Management Plan that fully describes its approach to manage personnel (staffing) and teaming partners and/or subcontractors (if applicable) to manage the BPA and subsequent call orders while performing each task efficiently and proactively. In addition, the plan shall address how the Offeror will provide the Government visibility into each task.

b) Offeror’s approach should also demonstrate its capability of managing numerous requirements across various DoD stakeholders. This should also clearly articulate the management process for the following:

a. Establishing a clear understanding of requirements and associated development times at the beginning of each Period of Performance in accordance with the Government’s outlook.

b. Providing a plan to adjust should additional requirements within each Period of Performance arise and describe to the Government the impacts of cost, schedule and performance to existing requirements in a timely manner.

c. Ensuring timeliness of deliverables associated with the deliverables in the contract.

c) The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed approach to determine the effectiveness of the management plan to staff, recruit, retain, and replace personnel. The Government will also evaluate the proposed list of labor categories to determine how well it describes the required experience and expertise to perform the entire range of tasks in the PWS.

iii. Experience and Qualifications

a. The Offerors approach shall discuss its staffing strategy, rationale for the proposed labor mix, and the experience, skill, and qualifications of proposed personnel. The approach shall address the thirteen (13) common labor categories found in Attachment 4, as well as the Offeror's proposed solution of labor categories as it relates to the experience and qualifications required to perform the entire range of tasks in the PWS.

b. Experience. Offeror’s approach should demonstrate familiarity with DoD IT or other equivalent systems. Experience with software development and certifications should align with a clear understanding and explanation of delivering quality software in an Agile software environment.

i. Contractor shall describe a maximum of five (5) work samples with similar systems within DoD or equivalent that demonstrates its past technical experience in the required elements of the PWS. Samples should be directly associated with software development/sustainment at the DoD or equivalent level.

ii. Describe the types of personnel and the quantity and quality of the Offeror's corporate experience relevant to the requirements. This includes understanding of Authority to Operate (ATO), cybersecurity, and low code/no code platforms such as OutSystems.

c. Qualifications. The Offeror shall specifically address its approach/methodology and rationale for the following:

i. Choosing Key Personnel. Describe how each Key Personnel would be involved in each task/subtask and how their qualifications and experience uniquely qualify them for the Key Personnel positions described in the PWS.

d. Offeror’s approach should demonstrate familiarity with DoD IT or other equivalent systems. Experience with software development and certifications should align with a clear understanding and explanation of delivering quality software in an Agile software environment.

e. The Government will evaluate how well the offeror demonstrated its understanding of software engineering approach in maximizing use of low code/no code systems and experience with DoD or equivalent enterprise systems.

The Government intends to perform a combined technical/risk evaluation using the following adjectival ratings:

Blue

Outstanding

Quote demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple

Good

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

Green

Acceptable

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

Yellow

Marginal

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

Red

Unacceptable

Quote does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is not awardable, and/or risk of performance is unacceptably high.

Rating Description

Significant Strength

An aspect of an Offeror’s quote with appreciable merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the considerable advantage of the Government during contract performance.

Strength

An aspect of an offeror’s quote with merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the advantage of the Government during contract performance.

Weakness A flaw in the quote that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

Significant Weakness

A flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. (See FAR 15.001).

Uncertainty

Any aspect of the quote for which the intent of the offer is unclear (e.g., more than one way to interpret the offer or inconsistencies in the quote indicating that there may have been an error, omission, or mistake).

Deficiency

A material failure of a quote to meet a government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a quote that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

FACTOR III – Price: Price quotations should support the proposed Factors (pricelist and total evaluated price (TEP), and will be evaluated for fair and reasonableness, unbalanced pricing, completeness, and the PECP will be evaluated for realism. Schedule contractor whose price is determined to be incomplete, unreasonable, or unbalanced will not be considered for award.

Total Evaluated Price (TEP): The Initial TEP (I-TEP) will be the average of the fully burdened labor rates of the thirteen (13) prepopulated common labor categories (see Atch 4 Pricelist tab 1) across all five (5) years. Evaluation of options and the extension of services (EOS) shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options. The six-month EOS is IAW FAR 52.217-8, “Option to Extend Services” and will be utilized if necessary. The six-month EOS is not to be considered part of option period X and will be a separate option exercised if utilized. After any interchanges, if necessary, the Government will evaluate the Final TEP (F- TEP). If interchanges do not occur, the I-TEP will become the F-TEP.

Labor Category

Program Management I

Analyst I

Information Security I

System Engineer I

Strategic Planner I

Senior Engineer I

Senior Technician I

Software Systems Engineer I

Test Engineer I

Test/QA I

Support Tech I

Under this factor, the Government will evaluate the Schedule contractor’s F-TEP based on the following:

Reasonableness. For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. Normally, price reasonableness is established through price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404. In the event that price analysis techniques at FAR 15.404 are insufficient to establish a fair and reasonable price determination, other price analysis techniques may be used.

Unbalanced Pricing. The Government will evaluate quotes to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to price, variable quantity matrix factors, and separately priced line items. Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and could result in payment of unreasonably high prices. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one (1) or more contract line items is significantly over or understated. The Government may also consider an offer unbalanced if there is a significant difference between proposed labor rates in the same labor category between option periods or the proposed prices from year to year are above what would be considered a reasonable adjustment for escalation.

Unbalanced pricing will be determined not awardable.

Completeness. The Schedule contractor’s price will be reviewed to determine the extent to which all the price elements of the offer have been addressed. The Schedule contractor’s price quotation will be evaluated to ensure continuity and traceability of prices to the technical quotation and between the initial quotation and any revisions thereto. The review will determine the adequacy of the schedule contractor’s quotation in addressing and fulfilling the RFQ requirements. Incomplete packages will be determined not awardable.

Realism. The proposed direct rates for the five-years will be evaluated for realism. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s and first-tier subcontractor(s)’ (if applicable) PECP for realism by assessing the compatibility of proposed price with quote scope and effort IAW FAR 52.222-46. For the PECP to be realistic, it must reflect what it would cost the Offeror to perform the effort, if performed with reasonable economy and efficiency in the relevant geographic area, based on recognized national and regional compensation surveys. It must also demonstrate the Offeror’s ability to successfully recruit and retain qualified professional employees in the geographical area where the work is being performed.

The table below illustrates the calculation of a proposal’s TEP using the methodology described above. This is for illustrative purposes only. Prices reflected in the table are notional and in no way reflect the actual value of the requirement or an actual evaluation of proposed prices submitted in response to this, or any other, solicitation for the same or similar requirements.

Performance Period (POP) POP Length Proposed Price Base 12 Months $46,670,930.26

Option I 12 Months $61,450,701.38

Option II 12 Months $17,325,056.08

Option III 12 Months $9,600,830.11

Option IV 12 Months $1,786,444.68

Total Proposed Price for Base Period and Option I through IV $136,883,962.51

Total Evaluated Price (TEP) $136,883,962.51