ATTCH 11 FA701424R0021__Section M___Evaluation_of_Offers_FINAL 02012024.docx

ATTACHMENT 11

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION

1.1 Basis for Award. This is a best value source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3 as supplemented. FAR 15.101 states that best value can be obtained by using any one or a combination of source selection approaches. The Government intends to award the contract following an objective assessment and validation of the Highest Technical Rated Offeror (HTRO) with Realistic and Reasonable Price (RRP) -- consistent with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.101-1 and 15.3 as supplemented by the Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures referenced in Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) 215.300 and the Department of the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DAFFARS) 5315.3 to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision.

1.1.1 Best value is defined as the offeror who meets the HTRO with a Government-validated technical score and realistic and reasonable price. The Government is not selecting the Lowest Priced Technically Acceptable proposal and will not conduct a subjective tradeoff.

1.1.2 A contract may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with FAR 9.104-1, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation) and is deemed, based on the evaluation factors, to represent the best value to the Government.

1.1.3 The Source Selection Authority (SSA) will base the source selection decision on the evaluation criteria described below. While the Government source selection evaluation team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

1.2 Number of Contracts to be awarded. The Government intends to award a single award Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF)/Cost Reimbursable hybrid contract.

1.3 IDIQ Ceiling. Reserved

1.4 Minimum Guaranteed Task Order. The Initial Task Order – a comprehensive IDIQ-level phase-in with site surveys, a phase-in plan, and other program-level activities –will satisfy the minimum order requirement. This is not a requirements contract, and the Government is not obligated to issue any task order(s) beyond the minimum guaranteed initial task order.

1.5 Proposals Substantiation. An Offeror’s submittal of unsubstantiated and/or misleading claims, for even a single Past Technical Experience evaluation criterion, could result in the Government determining that the Offeror’s proposed self-rated score is disingenuous and/or artificially inflated. If this were to occur, the Government would unilaterally downward adjust the Offeror’s score, potentially down to zero (0) points.

1.6 Discussions. The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions with one, some, or all Offerors if necessary. Evaluation Notices (ENs) may be used for clarification or communication purposes as well as discussions. Responses to the ENs for cost and past performance will be evaluated in accordance with the evaluation criteria stated herein. Failure to respond to ENs will eliminate the Offeror from further evaluation and consideration for award.

2.0 PROPOSAL CONFORMANCE AND RESPONSIBILITY

2.1 Proposal Conformance Offerors shall meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, technical requirements, representations and certifications, and other instructions identified within the solicitation. Offerors shall comply with content required within each of the proposal volumes and sections. Failure to conformance with any requirement of the solicitation may result in the Government determining the Offeror to be non-compliant 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 conformance.

2.2 Responsibility. No award shall be made to an Offeror unless the Contracting Officer determines them 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 volume of the proposal, and other information, not limited to proposal information, when making the determination of responsibility.

2.3 Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI). Organizational Conflict of Interest issues are treated in a manner similar to responsibility determinations. An Offeror’s actual or potential OCI concerns must be avoided, mitigated, or neutralized before that Offeror may receive an award of this contract.

3.0 EVALUATION METHODOLGY AND FACTORS

3.1 Evaluation Methodology. The Government will utilize a HTRO methodology. The HTRO method requires the Offeror to score itself on Volume 2 Past Experience, based on the criteria described in Section L Instructions to Offerors. The Government will rank all proposals based on self-rated scores, from the highest self-rated scored Offeror to the lowest self-rated scored Offeror. The Government will begin the evaluation with the highest self-rated rated offeror.

The Government intends to validate the Technical Experience, Past Performance, and evaluate Cost/Price of the Offeror with the highest Government-validated self-rated score using the following steps:

Step 1: The Government will identify and select the HTRO received and then move to Step 2.

Note: In the event multiple offerors have the same self-rated score the Government will proceed through steps 2 and 3 with all offerors having the highest self-rated score.

Step 2: Government will validate Gate –Small Business Participation Plan on an acceptable/unacceptable basis. Only the offeror deemed acceptable, move to Step 3. Unacceptable offeror will be eliminated from further evaluation.

Step 3: The Government Technical Experience and Past Performance Teams will validate the self-rated score of the HTRO for Technical Experience and Past Performance with work samples, respectively. The offeror with the validated highest technical rated self-score will move to Step 4.

Note 1: In the event the self-rated score cannot be validated the Government will go back to Step 1 and identify the next HTRO.

Note 2: In the event multiple offers have the same validated scores, the Government will use tiebreakers from the technical evaluation. The following tiebreakers will be used in the following order:

Tie Breaker 1 The first tiebreaker shall be L-3.2.2.5 – Number of IT Service contracts maintaining mission critical systems at a rate of 99.99% or higher availability. (PWS section 2.6.2).

Tie Breaker 2 The second tiebreaker shall be 3.2.2.11 – Number of FTEs of IT personnel currently in possession of a TS/SCI (Security Clearance by Site (Appendix 7)).

Tie Breaker 3 The third tiebreaker shall be L-3.2.2.7 – Number of FTEs of Technical personnel in Specialist Series position supporting the Defense Red Switched Network (DRSN). (PWS section 2.6.8).

Tie Breaker 4 The fourth tiebreaker shall be L-3.2.2.16 – Number of documented instances where Contingency Planning were implemented, including reconstitution of critical services to ensure Continuity of Operations/Continuity of Government (COOP/COOG). (PWS sections 2.5.19).

Tie Breaker 5 The fifth tiebreaker shall be L-3.2.2.19 – Number of IT service contracts supporting RMF based Cybersecurity processes. (PWS sections 2.4.1)

Tie Breaker Determination The Offeror with the highest score in the first tiebreaker will be considered the HTRO and will be evaluated for an RRP. If the tied Offerors score the same for the first tiebreaker, then the evaluation will move to the second tiebreaker and so on.

If all tiebreakers are evaluated at maximum scores, then the Government will validate claimed positions above the maximum count to determine maximum scores in the same order as the tie-breakers listed above. Offerors can enter information for more positions than the maximum counts in the “Offeror Response” column of the Offeror Self-Rated Scoring Matrix.

Step 4: The Government Cost/Pricing team will evaluate the cost/price of HTRO to ensure cost/price is complete, balanced, reasonable, and cost realism, as well as the PECP is realism. If offeror’s cost/price is determined to be complete, balanced, and reasonable an award is made to this realistic offeror. However, if the offeror’s price does not meet the cost/price criteria, then the next HTRO will proceed through steps 2 or 3, as applicable. An award will be made if this offeror successfully meets all the evaluation criteria.

3.2 EVALUATION FACTOR OVERVIEW. The Government will use the following evaluation factors to evaluate Offerors’ proposals according to the methodology set forth in section 3.1: The Government will then validate and evaluate the factors as outlined below:

Volume I: Factor 1: Small Business Participation Plan Volume II: Factor 2: Past Experience Volume IIA: Subfactor 1: Technical Experience Volume IIB: Subfactor 2: Past Performance Volume III: Factor 3: Cost/Price (Complete, Balanced, Most Probable Cost, Realistic PECP, and Fair and Reasonable)

3.2.1 Volume I: Factor 1: SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION PLANS

Each Offeror’s Small Business Participation Plan (SBPP) shall be validated, based on the elements below, to determine if the Offeror provides an adequate approach to meeting the participation objectives and demonstrates an understanding of those objectives. The SBPP must address each of the following elements in sufficient detail.

i) An adequate description of the extent of participation of proposed Small Businesses (SB) when subcontracting possibilities exist, including the company names with CAGE codes the offeror plans to use in the performance of this resultant contract; and,

ii) An adequate description of the subcontracted work to be performed by these proposed firms is provided; and,

iii) The goals must be expressed in terms of percentages of the total planned contracted dollars. The total Small Business participation shall be a minimum of 35% of the total planned contracted dollars.

Table M-1: Minimum Quantitative Requirements

Small Disadvantaged Business

(SDB)

x.x%

Historically Underutilized Business Zone Small Business (HUBZone) x.x%

Woman-Owned Small Business

(WOSB)

x.x%

Service-Disabled Veteran- Owned Small Business

(SDVOSB)

x.x%

Veteran-Owned Small Business

(VOSB)

x.x%

3.2.1.1 Small Business Utilization Rating

The rating reflects the evaluation of the acceptability of the offeror’s approach for meeting the Government’s Small Business Participation objective of a minimum of 35% of the total planned contracted dollars. The Offeror’s proposal shall be evaluated to determine whether the proposal is acceptable or unacceptable, using the ratings and descriptions outlined in the table below. One rating will be assigned to the Small Business Utilization factor. A rating of unacceptable for Small Business Participation will be considered a deficiency and render the offeror ineligible for award without revising the proposal.

Table M-2: Small Business Utilization Rating

3.2.2 Volume II: Factor 2: PAST EXPERIENCE

The government will validate self-rated scores for each subfactor (technical and past performance) based on the guidance listed in each subsection below.

3.2.2.1 Volume IIA: Subfactor 1: Technical Experience

3.2.2.1.1 Technical Experience Evaluation. The Government will validate the self-rated scores of the HTRO. To do this, the Government will use the work samples and Appendix C to Section L Cross Reference Matrix provided by the Offeror. If the Government is unable to find the substantiating information within the referenced page, paragraph, table, etc., 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 (0) 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. If the Government downward adjusts the Offeror’s self-rated score as a result of the validation process, and that Offeror is no longer the highest Government-validated self-rated Offeror, then the Government will re-rank the proposals based on the updated score and begin the evaluation process again with the new highest Offeror’s self-rated score. This process will continue until the Government identifies the highest Government-validated self-rated score.

3.2.2.1.2 Maximum scoring. The maximum scores for each Element within the Technical Experience scoring criteria are outlined in Table 3 below.

3.2.2.1.3 Volume IIB: Subfactor 2: Past Performance

3.2.2.1.4 Past Performance Evaluation. The Government will then separately validate the Past Performance of the Offeror with the highest Government-validated self-rated scores for Technical Experience. The Government will evaluate the Past Performance of each work sample provided by the Offeror in support of their Technical Experience self-rated score. The Government’s evaluation will assess the Offeror’s/Team Member’s/Subcontractor’s ability to successfully accomplish the proposed effort based on the Offeror’s/Team Member’s/Subcontractor’s demonstrated performance record.

3.2.2.1.5 Maximum Scoring. The maximum scores for all CPAR Rating within the Past Performance scoring criteria is 7,000 points. See Table 4 below.

3.2.4. Volume III: Factor 3: Cost/Price: The Offeror’s cost proposal will be evaluated using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404, for completeness, reasonableness, balance, and realism. The Professional Employee Compensation Plan (PECP) and Employee Compensation Plan (ECP) will both be evaluated for realism. Only proposals determined to be reasonable, complete, balanced, and realistic and with a PECP and ECP determined to be realistic will be eligible for award.

Total Overall Price. The proposal will be evaluated on the total overall price and the cost proposed for each CLIN. The Total Evaluated Price (TEP) consists of the total proposed price for all CLINs, Optional CLINs, Not To Exceed (NTE) CLINs (although NTE CLINs will not be evaluated) and Proposed Award Fee, for a five-year, 6-month period. The cost proposed for each CLIN includes the applicable unburdened labor hour rates, burden rate, (fee is not to be included in the burden rate), and any other rate applied to each respective CLIN total (i.e. Material Handling Fee). The Government will evaluate the TEP by evaluating all proposed CLINs, Optional CLINs, and Proposed Award Fee for all years of performance. The TEP will include evaluation of FAR 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services. This option to extend the contract terms shall be evaluated as part of the initial evaluation, whereby any resultant exercise of this option is within scope of the pending contract. The option provision may be exercised more than once, but the total extension of performance hereunder shall not exceed six (6) months. Offerors are required only to price the base and option CLINs. Offerors shall not submit a price for the potential six (6) month extension of services period because the Government will use the price of the final option year to calculate the price of the six (6) month extension as shown in the pricing model (Attachment 7A). The offeror's proposed estimated costs shall not be controlling for source selection purposes. Probable cost shall be measured as follows:

Government estimate of anticipated performance costs plus any base fee proposed plus any fee anticipated to be awarded.

The cost for required services under the mission essential services plan will also be evaluated and considered as part of the cost factor but will not be considered as a part of the total evaluated probable cost. Transition costs will not be included in the evaluated probable cost. Cost will be evaluated for reasonableness, completeness, balance, and realism of the proposed contract cost.

3.2.4.1 PECP Realism Analysis

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s and first-tier subcontractors’ PECPs for realism by assessing the compatibility of proposed cost with proposal scope and effort in accordance with (IAW) FAR 52.222-46 – Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees (July 29, 2022). For the PECP or ECP to be realistic, it must reflect what it would cost the Offeror to perform the effort IAW the scope of the PWS and if performed with reasonable economy and efficiency in the National Capital Region (NCR), based on recognized national and regional compensation surveys. The PECP and ECP will also be validated against the PWS and the proposed labor categories will be checked for alignment with the work to be performed to ensure that the offeror’s proposed workforce is appropriate for the work to be performed.

3.2.4.2 Fair and Reasonable Price

The Government will evaluate the reasonableness of proposed cost IAW FAR 15.404, by assessing the acceptability of the Offeror's methodology used in developing the cost estimates. For the cost to be reasonable in its nature and amount, it should not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of a competitive business. Reasonableness considers the context of a given source selection, including current market conditions and other factors that affect the ability of an Offeror to perform the contract requirements. Reasonableness depends upon a variety of considerations and circumstances, including but not limited to:

a. Whether it is the type of cost generally recognized as ordinary and necessary for the conduct of the Offeror's business or of the contract performance;

b. Generally accepted sound business practices, arm’s length bargaining, Federal and State laws and regulations, etc.;

c. The contractor's responsibilities to the Government, other customers, the owners of the business, employees, and the public at large; and

d. Any significant deviations from the Offeror's established practices.

3.2.4.3 Most Probable Cost for Realism

The Government will evaluate the realism of the proposed cost IAW FAR 15.404, by independently reviewing and evaluating specific elements of each offeror’s proposed cost estimate to determine whether the estimated proposed cost elements are realistic for the work to be performed; reflect a clear understanding of the requirements; and are consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the offeror’s technical proposal.

3.2.4.4 Unbalanced Pricing

The Government will analyze proposals to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to cost, variable quantity matrix factors, and separately priced line items in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. A proposal may be rejected if the CO determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

3.2.4.5 Completeness

Cost proposals will be evaluated for completeness by assessing the level of detail of the Offeror- provided Cost data for all requirements in the PWS and assessing the traceability of estimates. Established rounding methodology is employed throughout Cost proposal. For the Cost data to be complete, the Offeror, and its subcontractors, must provide all the data necessary. The data must be traceable between the Labor Summary, WBS, Staffing Plan, and the CLIN Cost Breakout. In addition, the Subcontracting Plan will be evaluated for adequacy, ensuring that the required information, goals, and assurances are included IAW FAR 19.704. The amount of data needed may vary depending on the requirements.

3.3 Volume IV: Mission Essential Services Plan

The Government will review the Offeror’s Mission Essential Services Plan to ensure it addresses all requirements in paragraph 2.5.19 of the PWS.

3.4 Award

Award will be made to the responsible HTRO with an Acceptable Small Business Participation Plan and a price that is Complete, Reasonable, Realistic, and Balanced.

END OF SECTION M

image1.emf image2.emf