Atch 06 - EPASS FOPR 80 Evaluation Criteria.docx

EVALUATION CRITERIA

Engineering, Professional, and Administrative Support Services (EPASS) Fair Opportunity Proposal Request (FOPR) #80

1 Task Order Selection

1.1 Basis for Task Order Award

This acquisition will utilize a fair opportunity selection process as set forth in Sections 2.0 and 3.0 below. Selection will be made in accordance with (IAW) the terms and conditions of the General Services Administration One Acquisition Solution for Integrated Services Small Business (GSA OASIS SB) Multiple Award Indefinite Delivery Indefinity Quantity (IDIQ) Contract, and Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 16.505 as supplemented. The FAR and its supplements are available electronically at https://www.acquisition.gov.

The cost proposal will be evaluated for realism and reasonableness and balance IAW Section 3.2 of this document. A task order under the GSA OASIS SB Multiple Award Contract (MAC) Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) may be awarded to the Offeror who is deemed responsible IAW FAR Subpart 9.1, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by this solicitation) and whose proposal is evaluated and determined to be the Highest Technically Rated Offeror (HTRO) with a Realistic and Reasonable Price (RRP).

The evaluation criteria maximize the objectivity of determining the HTRO. The Government finds that an individual Offeror with prior performance history in the evaluation criteria listed in the Offeror Self-Scoring Matrix (FOPR Attachment 13) presents a lower risk of unsuccessful performance. Likewise, the Government finds that an individual Offeror with little prior performance history in the qualification criteria listed presents a higher risk of unsuccessful performance.

1.2 Ties and Tie-Breakers

In the event of a tie for highest technical score after the Offerors’ Self-Scores are evaluated and validated by the Government, the following tie-breakers will be used in the following order:

1.2.1 Tie Breaker 1

The first tie-breaker shall be: “Number of Positions Performing Instruction in Nuclear Deterrence Policy/Strategy” (See SF-3.1.2.3, FOPR PWS: 3.5.2.2)

1.2.2 Tie Breaker 2

The second tie-breaker shall be: “Number of Positions Performing Systems Engineering Instruction in Housing Professional Continuing Education” (See SF-3.1.2.2, FOPR PWS: 3.4.2.2)

1.2.3 Tie Breaker Determination

The Offeror with the highest score in the first tie-breaker will be considered the HTRO and will be evaluated for a RRP. If the tied Offerors score the same for the first tie-breaker then the evaluation will move to the second tie-breaker and so on. For example, if Offeror A and B are tied after self-scores are evaluated and validated, the Government will total all positions on work samples in the proposal, who are performing cybersecurity support across the submitted work samples. If Offeror A has 55 validated positions and Offeror B has 40 validated positions, Offeror A wins the tie-breaker.

If all tie-breakers 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 “WS” tabs of the Offeror Self-Scoring Matrix.

1.3 Interchanges

Offerors should propose their optimal work samples to this requirement. The Government intends to make a selection without interchanges. Should interchanges be conducted, Offeror responses to Interchange Notices will be considered in making the task order selection decision. The Government may conduct interchanges either orally or in writing, and may conduct interchanges with none, some, or all Offerors. Reference the Section L and Supplemental Instructions to Offerors (ITO) at Attachment 03 for additional instructions on conducting interchanges.

IMPORTANT: The Government reserves the right to contact the Prime Offeror or any Team Members/Subcontractors/Interdivisional Transfers (IDT) to substantiate, understand, or clarify any of the evidence provided.

1.4 Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements such as terms and conditions and technical requirements in addition to those identified as evaluation criteria. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the Offeror being ineligible for award. By submission of its offer, the Offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors. The Government's expressed requirements for this effort are the hours and labor categories identified in the Level of Effort (LOE) matrix (Attachment 02).

2 Evaluation Methodology/Factors

The following evaluation factors and self-score point system will be used to evaluate each proposal. The United States Government Task Order Technical Evaluation Team (USG Tech Team) will rank the proposals based on initial self-scoring and begin validation of the highest proposed self-score. If data supporting the self-score is not substantiated and the self-score of another proposal displaces the previous highest self-scored proposal, then the next highest self-scored proposal will begin the validation process. The proposal with the highest validated score will move to the cost/price evaluation phase. If the proposal’s cost/price is found to be realistic and reasonable and balanced, then award will be made to that Offeror.

Factor 1: Technical Factor 2: Cost/Price

3.0 Task Order Selection Process

This is a fair opportunity selection process that is neither trade-off nor lowest price technically acceptable. The Government will conduct this competition using the HTRO with a RRP methodology. Task order award will be made to a responsible Offeror that submits a proposal that satisfies the Government's expressed requirements for this effort, has the highest validated technical rating (i.e., self-score), and has a RRP.

Offerors will self-score under each evaluation criteria subfactor and provide evidence (e.g., body of facts, data, proof) to substantiate that score. The Government will validate the Offeror’s proposal with the highest self-score. The Offeror cannot score more than the maximum possible points for each evaluation criteria subfactor, and the Government will not verify anything above the maximum possible score unless a tie-breaker applies. Each evaluation criteria subfactor has a weighting factor to be applied against the Offeror’s self-score, as shown in the Offeror Self-Scoring Matrix (Attachment 13). This weighting is multiplied against the Offeror’s Self-Score and totaled as the Offeror’s Weighted Self-Score.

After a total has been determined and validated for the HTRO, the Offeror will move forward for further evaluation under Factor 2. If the Offeror’s cost/price is found to be realistic and reasonable and balanced, award will be made to that Offeror. If the HTRO is determined to be either unrealistic or unreasonable or unbalanced under Factor 2, the Offeror with the next-highest self-score will be validated under Factor 1. If the self-score is verified and the Offeror is the new HTRO, that Offeror will move forward for further evaluation under Factor 2. This process will repeat itself until an Offeror with the highest Government-validated self-score is deemed to have a realistic and reasonable and balanced price.

There will be no trade-offs between cost/price and technical.

The Offeror shall select a maximum of five work samples to submit as substantiating evidence for the self-score point system. The scoring of each evaluation criteria subfactor shall come from the work samples submitted unless otherwise stated in the evaluation criteria subfactor.

An acceptable work sample is defined as either a contract, a single award IDIQ, or a single task order issued under a master IDIQ contract (reference FAR 16.501-1). A single award IDIQ to include all accompanying task orders will only count as one acceptable work sample. Single-award IDIQs are acceptable work samples only if the owning agency issues one annual CPAR on the IDIQ (as opposed to a CPAR on each individual task order under that IDIQ). An IDIQ contract by itself will not count as an acceptable work sample, unless it meets the qualifications of the single award IDIQ with only one annual CPAR.

When referring to work samples, the terms “contract” and “task order” are interchangeable with the term “contract” often used as the all-encompassing term.

3.0A For all Prime Offerors that are not submitting an offer as a Joint-Venture, all work samples must fall into one of the following categories:

1. Category 1: Must have been performed by the Offeror.

1. Category 1A: Work samples performed with the Offeror acting as the prime contractor.

1. Category 1B: Work samples performed with the Offeror acting as a subcontractor. The Offeror must provide substantiating evidence that their personnel actually performed relevant portion(s) of the work for these samples to count.

1. Category 2: Work samples performed by a Team Member. A maximum of two Category 2 work samples may be used per Offeror.

1. Category 2A: Work samples in which the Team Member was acting as Prime contractor. For the work sample to qualify, the Team Member must be considered a Major Subcontractor to the Prime, as defined in ITO Section 15.2.2.1, Paragraph 2. Signed teaming agreements between the Prime Offeror and each subcontractor team member shall be placed in Volume 1(b) if Category 2 work samples are to be used.

1. Category 2B: Work samples performed with the Team Member acting as a subcontractor. For the work sample to qualify, the Team Member must be considered a Major Subcontractor, as defined in ITO Section 15.2.2.1, Paragraph 2. Signed teaming agreements between the Prime Offeror and each subcontractor team member shall be placed in Volume 1(b) if Category 2 work samples are to be used. The Offeror must provide substantiating evidence that the Team Member’s personnel actually performed the relevant portion(s) of the work for these samples to count.

3.0B For all Prime Offerors that are submitting an offer as a Joint-Venture, all work samples must fall into one of the following categories. For Joint-Ventures, unless an exception below applies, a work sample must be provided from the Joint-Venture and each Partner of that Joint-Venture.

1. Category 1: Must have been performed by the Joint-Venture or a Partner of the Joint-Venture acting as prime. A Work sample under this section must have either a Small Business Administration (SBA) approved mentor/protégé agreement or a fully executed Joint-Venture agreement for all other Joint-Ventures included in Volume I of the proposal.

0. Category 1A: Work samples performed with the Joint-Venture acting as the prime contractor.

0. Category 1B: Work samples performed with the Joint-Venture acting as a subcontractor. The Joint-Venture must provide substantiating evidence that their personnel actually performed relevant portion(s) of the work for these samples to count.

0. Category 1C: Work samples performed by a Partner of the Joint-Venture acting as the prime contractor.

2. For Mentor/Protégé Joint-Ventures: Mentor member of the partnership, a minimum of six months of past performance in the last five years as of the date of this FOPR release is required to minimally qualify.

2. For Mentor/Protégé Joint-Ventures: Protégé member of the partnership, a minimum of three months of past performance in the last seven years as of the date of this FOPR release is required to minimally qualify.

0. Category 1D: Work samples performed by a Partner of the Joint-Venture acting as a subcontractor. The Joint-Venture Partner’s work sample must provide substantiating evidence that their personnel actually performed relevant portion(s) of the work for these samples to count.

3. For Mentor/Protégé Joint-Ventures: Mentor member of the partnership, a minimum of six months of past performance in the last five years as of the date of this FOPR release is required to minimally qualify.

3. For Mentor/Protégé Joint-Ventures: Protégé member of the partnership, a minimum of three months of past performance in the last seven years as of the date of this FOPR release is required to minimally qualify.

Exception 1: A Joint-Venture work sample is not required. However, if a Joint-Venture work sample is not provided under Category 1A or 1B, the Joint-Venture must submit a Joint-Venture Qualifications and Experience Cover Sheet (Attachment 16) which shall include all requested documentation so the Government may evaluate any Advisory and Assistance Services (A&AS) work done and qualifications of the Joint-Venture IAW 13 C.F.R. § 125.8(e). The Joint-Venture is only required to submit Attachment 16 if it has performed A&AS work (as defined in FAR 2.101) on a United States Government contract within the last five years from the date of this FOPR release. Information submitted in Attachment 16 will neither count towards a total points calculation, nor will it count against the number of work samples to be submitted. A CPAR demonstrating Satisfactory performance in quality, schedule, and management ratings is required for the A&AS work submitted within Attachment 1. In the event a CPAR is not available, a Prime Past Performance Rating Form (PPPRF) may be submitted (Offeror will use the same form and instructions as in Section 3.0C below). In the event a Joint-Venture Qualifications and Validation Cover Sheet is provided in lieu of a scored work sample, the provided CPAR/PPPRF information will not be included in the CPAR evaluation under Section 3.1.3. Failure to provide all data requested may result in disqualification from consideration for award. The Government will consider the work done or qualifications insufficient if the CPAR or PPPRF reflect performance below Satisfactory and therefore the Joint-Venture will be ineligible for award.

Exception 2 (For Mentor Protégé Joint-Ventures): A Protégé work is sample is not required. However, if no Protégé Partner work samples are provided under Category 1C or 1D, the Protégé Partner is required to submit a Protégé Qualifications and Experience Cover Sheet (Attachment 15) which shall include all requested documentation so the Government may evaluate the work done and qualifications of the Protégé Partner IAW 13 C.F.R. § 125.8(e). The documentation submitted with Attachment 15 is not required to meet the same standards and minimum qualifications as work samples used for self-scoring purposes. Information submitted in Attachment 15 will not count towards a total points calculation, nor will it count against the number of work samples to be submitted. The Protégé Partner must demonstrate that it has A&AS experience that meets the definition of A&AS as described in FAR 2.101. The A&AS experience must have been performed on a United States Government contract within the last seven years from the date of this FOPR release. A CPAR demonstrating Satisfactory performance in quality, schedule, and management ratings is required for the A&AS work submitted in Attachment 15. In the event a CPAR is not available, a PPPRF may be submitted. In the event a Protégé Qualifications and Validation Cover Sheet is provided in lieu of a scored work sample, the provided CPAR/PPPRF information will not be included in the CPAR evaluation under Section 3.1.3. Failure to provide all data requested may result in disqualification from consideration for award. The Government will consider the work done or qualifications insufficient if the CPAR or PPPRF reflect performance below Satisfactory and therefore the Joint-Venture will be ineligible for award.

1. Category 2: Work samples performed by a Team Member. A maximum of two Category 2 work samples may be used per Offeror.

1. Category 2A: Work samples in which the Team Member was acting as prime contractor. For the work sample to qualify, the Team Member must be considered a Major Subcontractor to the Prime, as defined in ITO Section 15.2.2.1, Paragraph 2. Signed teaming agreements between the Prime Offeror and each Subcontractor team member shall be placed in Volume 1(b) if Category 2 work samples are to be used.

1. Category 2B: Work samples performed with the Team Member acting as a subcontractor. For the work sample to qualify, the Team Member must be considered a Major Subcontractor, as defined in ITO Section 15.2.2.1, Paragraph 2. Signed teaming agreements between the Prime Offeror and each subcontractor team member shall be placed in Volume 1(b) if Category 2 work samples are to be used. The Offeror must provide substantiating evidence that the Team Member’s personnel actually performed the relevant portion(s) of the work for these samples to count.

3.0C All work samples must meet these minimum qualifications. The individual evaluation criteria subfactors in Sections 3.1.1-3.1.3 may add further restrictions in addition to these minimums:

1. Must be a contract with the United States Government.

1. The Offeror or team member’s work sample must have included at least six months of performance within the last five years as of the date of this FOPR release. Note: In order to ensure compliance with 13 C.F.R. § 125.8(e); Protégé partners of a Mentor-Protégé Joint-Venture agreement providing a work sample as the Prime Offeror must have included at least three months of performance within the last seven years as of the date of this FOPR release.

1. One of the work samples can optionally be a fixed price contract type; the remaining proposed work samples must be cost type contracts.

1. Offeror or Subcontractor must have received Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) ratings of “satisfactory” or above in Quality, Schedule, Cost Control, and Management categories on the most recent assessment. A copy of the most recent CPAR must be included for all work samples as an attachment to the Work Sample Cover Sheet (Attachment 14).

3. In the event there is not a fully completed CPAR for the contractor for a given work sample, the Offeror must submit a PPPRF (Attachment 17) in lieu of a CPAR. PPPRFs are used when the work sample contractor performed as the prime contractor—a Government official is required to complete this form.

3. The PPPRF must cover the most recent contractual period of work, must cover at least six months of performance, and must contain adjectival ratings in Quality, Schedule, Cost Control, and Management categories to be acceptable (for a fixed price work sample, Cost Control shall not be rated). All ratings must be “Satisfactory” or above in order for the work sample to qualify (for a fixed price work sample, a “Satisfactory” rating is required in Quality, Schedule, and Management). The ratings must be applied in accordance with the definitions in FAR 42.1305 Table 42-1.

3. When used, the PPPRF must be signed by the cognizant GS-15/O-6 or equivalent. The USG Tech Team reserves the right to contact the individual who signed the PPPRF and/or any of the Government Points of Contact (POC) provided with the work sample to validate the assessment of performance.

3. Adjectival ratings in PPPRFs shall not be included in the CPAR Subfactor scoring.

If a contract to a Joint-Venture is utilized as a work sample a copy of the Joint-Venture agreement shall be provided with the work sample.

If the procuring Government agency has used one or more continuation contracts IAW Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) 204.1601(c)(i) and the applicable Procedures Guidance and Information (PGI) to execute a particular scope of work, all of the continuation contracts will be considered as a single work sample, and all CPARs associated with the continuation contracts will be considered together in aggregate, as if assessing the performance of a single contract. Bridge contracts are not continuation contracts. There are two EPASS task orders that currently implement continuation contracts; these will be considered together as a single contractual effort/work sample.

· The current AFLCMC/HB Directorate effort has been contracted via FA8721-18-F-0001, FA8721-20-F-0003, and FA8721-21-F-0007. These will be considered as a single work sample.

· The current AFLCMC/HN Directorate effort has been contracted via FA8721-19-F-0005 and FA8721-21-F-0002. These will also be considered as a single work sample.

Unless specifically stated within an evaluation criteria subfactor’s specific restriction, each work sample category may be used and all work samples may be combined towards the Offeror’s total Self-Score within a given evaluation criteria subfactor, regardless of category.

A position may only count against one labor category criterion within the “Functional” Section of the Offeror Self-Scoring Matrix (which are the subfactors in Section 3.1.2 below). The Offeror’s substantiation must adequately show the position aligns to the labor category in the applicable evaluation criteria subfactor. For example, an aeromedical engineer position may perform duties including but not limited to engineering, logistics and program management. However, if the preponderance of this position’s duties are engineering in nature, then this position may only be counted as a single position - an engineer. Additionally, if two work samples for the same effort are used (e.g. an EPASS task order and its follow-on award) a position may only be counted once. This applies to all work sample categories.

3.1 FACTOR 1: Technical

This factor evaluates the Prime Offeror’s Self-Score as proposed under each evaluation criteria subfactor of the Offeror Self-Scoring Matrix. These self-scores can be based on Prime Offeror and/or Team Member contracts/task orders which are submitted as work samples, unless otherwise specified. Note that some categories may be for the Prime Offeror only, and some categories may be limited to a single work sample.

The USG Tech Team shall evaluate proposals and validate that the scores are accurate. The USG Tech Team reserves the right to contact the Government POCs identified in the proposal, the Prime Offeror or any Team Members, or any other resources deemed necessary for any or all evaluation criteria subfactor during validation of self-scores. However, the Offeror is reminded that, IAW ITO Section 1.7, the Government intends to award this task order based on the initial proposals as received, without interchanges.

The USG Tech Team will rank the proposals based on the Offeror’s initial self-scoring and begin validation of the highest proposed self-score. If data on the Offeror Self-Scoring Matrix is not substantiated and/or validated by the USG Tech Team and the self-score of another Offeror’s proposal displaces the previous highest self-scored proposal, then the next-highest self-scored proposal will begin the validation process. The proposal with the highest validated score will move to the cost/price evaluation phase. Note that if a proposal fails RRP evaluation, then the proposal with the next-highest technical score will move through the self-score validation phase and then the cost/price evaluation phase, as stated above.

IMPORTANT: Unsubstantiated and/or misleading claims, for even a single evaluation criteria subfactor, could result in the USG Tech Team determining that the Offeror’s proposed Self-Score is disingenuous and/or artificially inflated, thereby resulting in the proposal being determined unable to be awarded. The next highest rated self-score would then be validated.

The USG Tech Team reserves the right to downward adjust any Offeror Self-Score if the evidence provided by the Offeror is inconsistent with the Self-Score, or if the evidence is insufficient for the USG Tech Team to validate the Offeror’s Self-Score. If the USG Tech Team cannot validate the Offeror’s Self-Score on an evaluation criteria subfactor based on the substantiating data provided, the USG Tech Team reserves the right to downward adjust the Offeror’s Self-Score, potentially all the way down to zero points awarded.

The Prime Offeror shall accurately rate itself (including any Subcontractor team members) and provide sufficient evidence (i.e., body of facts, data, or proof) which clearly substantiates the Offeror’s Self-Score.

IMPORTANT: The USG Tech Team will only adjust the Offeror’s Self-Score downward, not upward.

3.1.1 NON-FUNCTIONAL

Subfactor 3.1.1.1: Number of Positions on the Largest Two Work Samples DEFINITION: Across all work samples submitted, the Offeror shall rate itself based on the total number of filled positions at a single point in time against the largest two work samples. The selected single point in time must be the same calendar date for both work samples, and this point in time must be within five years of the FOPR release date. This can include positions performed by subcontractors in support of the work sample (include subcontractors in the position count). Positions may be full- or part-time.

RESTRICTIONS: This criterion is restricted to not more than two work samples chosen from among the total number of work samples submitted. Of the two work samples one work sample must be a Category 1A, or in the case of a JV, if there is no Category 1A work sample, that JV may use a 1C work sample instead; the second work sample may be a Category 1A or 1C.

MAXIMUM COUNT: 97 positions (based on total number of positions identified in the LOE Matrix for this task order)

RELEVANCY: The Government has determined this qualification to be important as it directly relates to the Offeror’s ability to perform on a contract of similar magnitude.

BURDEN OF PROOF: For the Offeror’s chosen work sample, the Offeror must show evidence that the claimed number of positions were assigned to the contract. An employee roster that was officially delivered to the Government client or an invoice that shows unique position ID numbers are two items that could substantiate the number of positions on contract. The date of contractor generated business system reports must be no earlier than the FOPR release date.

Subfactor 3.1.1.2: Number of Geographically Separated Work Locations DEFINITION: Across all of the work samples submitted, the Offeror shall score itself based on the number of geographic locations where service was performed, not including Temporary Duty (TDY) assignments. A “geographic location” is defined as a Government installation or weapon system Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) facility where A&AS service is being performed. Performance at separate geographic locations can have occurred concurrently or non-concurrently. Geographic locations must be separated by at least 100 miles of driving distance. Teleworking / telecommuting employees must be counted with the geographic location of the serviced government location and not with the telework / telecommute location.

RESTRICTIONS: Category 1A work samples only

MAXIMUM COUNT: 3 Locations (based on total number of geographic locations identified in the LOE Matrix for this task order)

RELEVANCY: This task order requires work to be performed at multiple geographic locations as specified in the Performance Work Statement (PWS) and LOE Matrix (Attachments 01 and 02). The Government has determined this qualification to be important as it directly relates to the Offeror’s ability to understand the nuances of multiple and distinct geographical labor markets as well as manage a distributed workforce.

BURDEN OF PROOF: The Offeror must show that support at each claimed geographically separated work site is contractually required, and that each claimed work site was at least 100 miles apart in driving distance. The date of contractor generated business system reports must be no earlier than the FOPR release date.

Subfactor 3.1.1.3: Incumbent Positions Transitioned in a 60-day span DEFINITION: Across all work samples submitted, the Offeror shall score itself based on the highest number of incumbent positions transitioned within a given 60 calendar day period. Within 60 days is defined as a single 60 consecutive calendar day period for each work sample. For example, 16 May 2022 to 14 July 2022 is 60 calendar days. The 60-day period does not need to be the same for each work sample utilized for substantiation under the terms of this criterion. Transitioning is defined as hiring personnel who had been employees of the incumbent prime contractor or any of its subcontractors who were working on the expiring contract at the time the Offeror was awarded the work sample contract.

RESTRICTIONS: Category 1A work samples only. Exception: If the Joint-Venture is proposing without any recent and relevant work samples (in accordance with 3.0B Exception 1), Category 1C work samples may be submitted for this Subfactor.

MAXIMUM COUNT: 97 Positions (based on total number positions to be transitioned identified in the LOE Matrix for this task order)

RELEVANCY: The Government has determined this qualification to be important as it directly relates to mitigating transition risk. The maximum count of 407 relates directly to the number of incumbents to be transitioned from the current task order to this follow-on task order as depicted in the LOE Matrix (Attachment 02). This requirement includes many positions that are currently performed by incumbent contractors and will likely need to be subsumed at the award of this task order.

BURDEN OF PROOF: The Offeror must declare a 60-calendar day transition window for each work sample. These windows do not have to be the same period. The Offeror must show that each claimed employee officially began work on the first or last date of the selected time window, or any date in between the first and last dates. The Offeror must further show that each claimed employee was working on the expiring contract (i.e. the contract that the work sample contract replaced). Examples of acceptable evidence the claimed employee was in a position on the contract may include, but is not limited to, internal business system reports like personnel rosters with the date of transition, internal tracking of incumbent capture and new hire needs, time keeping reports showing hours charged during the transition period. Examples of evidence demonstrating transition of the subsumed contracts may include, but is not limited to, PWS identifying contracts subsumed and end dates along with follow-on task order dates or Federal Procurement Data Systems (FPDS) records showing contracts subsumed under the work sample submitted. The date of contractor generated business system reports must be no earlier than the FOPR release date.

Subfactor 3.1.1.5: Number of Tier 5-Eligible Positions DEFINITION: Across all work samples submitted, the Offeror shall score itself based on the total number of employee positions that are Tier 5/Top Secret eligible.

RESTRICTIONS: None

MAXIMUM COUNT: 12 Positions (based on total number positions identified in the LOE Matrix that are Tier 5 eligible for this task order)

RELEVANCY: The Government has determined this qualification to be important as it directly relates to previous performance of DoD contracts, the ability of company leadership to understand unique DoD missions, statutes, and regulatory environment. Positions on this task order will require that personnel be Tier 5-eligible. Although the Government controls Top Secret billets, Contractors have control over the eligibility of employees hired.

BURDEN OF PROOF: The Offeror will provide verifying documentation that clearly demonstrates Tier 5 eligibility, i.e., LOE Matrix, Official Business Systems Report. The date of contractor generated business system reports must be no earlier than the FOPR release date.

Subfactor 3.1.1.7: Vacancies DEFINITION: The offeror shall rate itself using the highest vacancy rate over any 30 day span of a submitted work sample. When self-scoring, Offerors shall enter number to one decimal place rounding up (e.g., for a maximum vacancy rate of 1.333%, Offerors shall enter 1.4%).

RESTRICTIONS: None

MAXIMUM COUNT: N/A

RELEVANCY: The Government organization for which this task order is solicited is executing, or will be executing, programs where avoiding vacancies is critical to providing consistent A&AS support over the entirety of the period of performance.

BURDEN OF PROOF: The Offeror must provide verifying documentation that clearly demonstrates vacancy rate, i.e., LOE Matrix, Official Business Systems Report. The date of contractor generated business system reports must be no earlier than the FOPR release date.

Subfactor 3.1.1.8: Financial Stability DEFINITION: The Offeror shall rate itself based on the percentage of cost of the base period of performance, where the Offeror either has the funding already available or has a line of credit from a financial institution (Attachment 19) at the start of the base period of performance. It is acceptable for the line of credit to be available contingent upon winning the task order if there is evidence. When self-scoring, Offerors shall enter only whole numbers, truncating any decimal portion of the percentage (e.g., for a line of credit equal to 22.6% of the base year cost, Offerors shall enter “22” in the self-scoring matrix).

RESTRICTIONS: Completed Financial Stability Questionnaire by Prime Offeror Only. Work Sample not required.

Note: A JV is considered a single legal entity and is therefore required to support the financials and maintain its own capital, separate from the partners of the JV. Prime Offeror refers to the JV entity.

MAXIMUM PERCENTAGE: 35 percent of base year cost

RELEVANCE: The Government has determined this qualification to be important as it directly relates to workforce stability, specifically where the Offeror has the ability to pay its employees and Subcontractor employees for approximately the first four months of the period of performance in the base year. This will help avoid work stoppage in the event that liquidation of payment is untimely from the Government, if the invoice/payment process has initial errors, if the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) is furloughed, etc. Since the base period of performance is 12 months on this task order, the maximum points will be achieved if the Offeror has funding available for 35% of the base period cost, which covers approximately the first four months of performance.

BURDEN OF PROOF: Offeror must submit the Financial Stability statement in Attachment 19

3.1.2 FUNCTIONAL

Subfactor 3.1.2.1: Positions Performing Engineering Education Research

DEFINITION: Of the work samples submitted, the Offeror shall score itself based on the number of engineering positions providing engineering education research analysis support. (FOPR PWS 3.3.1.6)

RESTRICTIONS: DoD work samples only.

MAXIMUM COUNT: 1 position (based on total number of engineering education research analysis positions identified in the LOE Matrix for this task order)

RELEVANCE: The USG has determined this qualification to be important as it directly relates to previous performance of DoD contracts/ task orders and the ability of company leadership to understand the unique DoD missions, statutes, and regulatory environment. This requirement includes engineering education research analysis support, and this criterion assesses the Offeror’s experience in this capability.

BURDEN OF PROOF: The Offeror must provide traceability showing the claimed positions performed work in accordance with this criterion. The work shall be identified on an LOE Matrix and/or an internal business systems report that identifies labor category and skill levels of engineering education research analysis. The date of any contractor generated internal business system reports must be dated no earlier than the FOPR release date. The Offeror must show that the claimed positions were in a role performing engineering education research analysis work, and that the claimed position was associated to the work sample contract.

Subfactor 3.1.2.2: Positions Performing Systems Engineering Instruction in Housing Professional Continuing Education DEFINITION: Of the work samples submitted, the Offeror shall score itself based on the number of engineering positions performing instruction in housing professional continuing education. (FOPR PWS 3.4.2.2)

RESTRICTIONS: DoD work samples only

MAXIMUM COUNT: 2 positions (based on total number of professional continuing education housing instructor positions identified in the LOE Matrix for this task order)

RELEVANCY: The USG has determined this qualification to be important as it directly relates to previous performance of DoD contracts/ task orders and the ability of company leadership to understand the unique DoD missions, statutes, and regulatory environment. This requirement includes instruction in housing professional continuing education support, and this criterion assesses the Offeror’s experience in this capability.

BURDEN OF PROOF: The Offeror must provide traceability showing the claimed positions performed work in accordance with this criterion. The work shall be identified on an LOE Matrix and/or an internal business systems report that identifies labor category and skill levels of instruction in housing professional continuing education. The date of any contractor generated internal business system reports must be dated no earlier than the FOPR release date. The Offeror must show that the claimed positions were in a role performing instruction in housing professional continuing education work, and that the claimed position was associated to the work sample contract.

Subfactor 3.1.2.3: Positions Performing Instruction in Nuclear Deterrence Policy/Strategy

DEFINITION: Of the work samples submitted, the Offeror shall rate itself based on the number of positions performing instruction in nuclear deterrence. (FOPR PWS: 3.5.2.2)

RESTRICTIONS: Government work samples only

MAXIMUM COUNT: 4 positions (based on total number of nuclear deterrence policy instructor positions identified in the LOE Matrix for this task order)

RELEVANCY: The USG has determined this qualification to be important as it directly relates to previous performance of DoD contracts/ task orders and the ability of company leadership to understand the unique DoD missions, statutes, and regulatory environment. This requirement includes instruction in nuclear deterrence support, and this criterion assesses the Offeror’s experience in this capability.

BURDEN OF PROOF: The Offeror must provide traceability showing the claimed positions performed work in accordance with this criterion. The work shall be identified on an LOE Matrix and/or an internal business systems report that identifies labor category and skill levels of instruction in nuclear deterrence. The date of any contractor generated internal business system reports must be dated no earlier than the FOPR release date. The Offeror must show that the claimed positions were in a role performing instruction in nuclear deterrence work, and that the claimed position was associated to the work sample contract.

Subfactor 3.1.2.4: Positions Performing Information Technology Administration and Cyber Defense Instruction DEFINITION: Of the work samples submitted, the Offeror shall rate itself based on the number of network administration positions performing information technology administration and cyber defense instruction (FOPR PWS 3.7.2.5)

RESTRICTIONS: None.

MAXIMUM COUNT: 1 position (based on total number of information technology administration and cyber defense instruction positions identified in the LOE Matrix for this task order)

RELEVANCY: The USG has determined this qualification to be important as it directly relates to previous performance of DoD contracts/ task orders and the ability of company leadership to understand the unique DoD missions, statutes, and regulatory environment. This requirement includes administration of information technology and cyber defense instruction, and this criterion assesses the Offeror’s experience in this capability.

BURDEN OF PROOF: The Offeror must provide traceability showing the claimed positions performed work in accordance with this criterion. The work shall be identified on an LOE Matrix and/or an internal business systems report that identifies labor category and skill levels of information technology administration and cyber defense instruction. The date of any contractor generated internal business system reports must be dated no earlier than the FOPR release date. The Offeror must show that the claimed positions were in a role performing information technology administration and cyber defense instruction work, and that the claimed position was associated to the work sample contract.

Subfactor 3.1.2.5: Positions Performing Instruction in Acquisition Management with Professional Certification in Program Management DEFINITION: Of the work samples submitted, the Contractor shall score itself based on the number of positions performing instruction in acquisition management with professional certification in program management. (FOPR PWS 3.3.2.8, 3.3.2.16)

RESTRICTIONS: DoD work samples only

MAXIMUM COUNT: 5 positions (based on total number of acquisition management instruction with professional certification in program management positions identified in the LOE Matrix for this task order)

RELEVANCY: The USG has determined this qualification to be important as it directly relates to previous performance of DoD contracts/ task orders and the ability of company leadership to understand the unique DoD missions, statutes, and regulatory environment. This requirement includes instruction in acquisition management with professional certification in program management, and this criterion assesses the Offeror’s experience in this capability.

BURDEN OF PROOF: The Offeror must provide traceability showing the claimed positions performed work in accordance with this criterion. The work shall be identified on an LOE Matrix and/or an internal business systems report that identifies labor category and skill levels of instruction in acquisition management with professional certification in program management. The date of any contractor generated internal business system reports must be dated no earlier than the FOPR release date. The Offeror must show that the claimed positions were in a role performing instruction in acquisition management with professional certification in program management work, and that the claimed position was associated to the work sample contract.

3.1.3 CPAR RATINGS

DEFINITION: Of the work samples submitted, the Offeror shall rate itself based on the total percentage of CPAR categories that were rated “Exceptional”, “Very Good”, “Satisfactory”, “Marginal”, or “Unsatisfactory” for the CPAR categories of Quality, Schedule, Cost Control, and Management on all CPARs that were received on all work samples. For a fixed price work sample, the Offeror shall rate itself based on the CPAR categories of Quality, Schedule, and Management (not Cost Control).

Offerors must provide all relevant fully completed CPARs to substantiate the Offeror’s Self-Score. A fully completed CPAR means that the Government can verify that a Government official has closed out the CPAR (e.g. Assessing Official, Reviewing Official, or Ombudsman). If only the Assessing Official closed out the CPAR, Contractor concurrence is also required – without showing this the Government does not consider the CPAR to be closed. For CPARs where the contractor non-concurred, Reviewing Official close out is required. Offerors that fail to provide all relevant CPARs may be disqualified due to intentional withholding of required information.

Adjectival ratings provided via PPPRFs or SPPRFs shall not be used for scoring in this subfactor (See Attachments 17 and 18). Team Member CPARs shall be submitted if a Team Member work sample has been used. Team Members may choose to submit their CPARs directly to the Government if there are concerns of proprietary information being exposed; however, all separately submitted information must be received by the FOPR deadline for receipt of proposals to be counted.

If a work sample is based on a task order awarded under a Single Award IDIQ, and the associated CPAR is at the Single Award IDIQ level, the Single Award IDIQ CPAR may be used for that work sample.

Important: The USG Tech Team must be able to validate each CPAR rating for each performance period of the contract/task order that is submitted as a work sample. For example, if a single work sample is in the fifth year of performance at time of FOPR release, the Government will need to validate all CPARs from that work sample (i.e., the base year and three option years, for a total of four annual CPARs).

RELEVANCY: The Government has determined this qualification to be important as it directly relates to an Offeror’s officially documented past performance on the utilized work samples and adherence to contractual terms and conditions. It is important to the Government to understand the level of quality of the Offeror’s or Team Member’s performance on the provided work samples.

3.1.4 Burden of Proof

The burden of proof for substantiating points in the Offeror Self-Scoring Matrix rests solely with the Offeror. The technical volume shall contain sufficient data to substantiate all the points claimed in the Offeror’s Self-Scoring matrix. Failure to do so may result in the Government downward adjusting the self-score, potentially all the way down to zero points awarded.

3.2 FACTOR 2: Cost/Price

The USG Tech Team will rank technical proposals from highest to lowest based on the Offeror’s self-score. The USG Tech Team will validate the HTRO’s self-score. If the initial HTRO remains the HTRO after Government validation of the self-score, then the Offeror’s cost/price proposal will be evaluated as described below for realism, reasonableness, and balance. If the Offeror’s proposal is determined to be unrealistic, unreasonable, or unbalanced after cost and price evaluation, the next HTRO will be validated by the Government. If the next HTRO remains the HTRO after Government validation of the self-score, then that Offeror’s cost proposal will be evaluated as described below for realism, reasonableness, and balance. This process will continue until there is a validated HTRO with a proposed cost/price that is determined to be realistic, reasonable, and balanced after Most Probable Cost (MPC) adjustments.

The Offerors’ Cost and Price Proposal Volume(s) will be evaluated using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404-1 in order to determine if it is realistic, reasonable, and balanced.

Unrealistically low proposals are defined as proposals in which an Offeror’s proposal requires an upward MPC adjustment greater than or equal to 10.00% in either Step 1 or Step 2 of the Cost Realism/Reasonableness Analysis (hereafter referred to as Analysis) described below.

See ITO Section 15.2.3.1 for detailed information on direct and indirect rates.

While proposals requiring upward MPC adjustments greater than or equal to 10.00% of total proposed cost are determined to be unrealistic, proposals requiring less than a 10.00% upward MPC adjustment may still be considered unrealistic if the price is deemed to reflect a failure to comprehend the complexity of the contractual requirements or poses an unacceptable risk to contract performance.

Unrealistically low or unreasonably high proposals will be deemed ineligible for award.

3.2.1 Cost Realism/Reasonableness

The Government will perform an analysis IAW FAR 15.404-1(d) on the Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee Level of Effort (CPFF LOE) Contract Line Item Numbers (CLIN) of the Offeror with the highest validated technical score. The analysis will consider the extent to which proposed costs under the CPFF LOE CLIN(s) indicate a clear understanding of solicitation requirements and determine whether they reflect a sound approach to satisfying those requirements.

Two-Step Process for Determining Realism/Reasonableness/Balance of the Proposed Costs

Step 1:

The Government will perform its analysis on the proposed individual direct labor rates located in the Uniform Pricing Template (UPT). The analysis will use an MPC for all labor categories provided in the UPT, which is part of the Government’s expressed requirement, based upon a survey of available data which may include, but is not limited to: General Schedule (GS), Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), Economic Research Institute (ERI), Salary.com, in-house subject matter experts, and historical data to include historical actual costs and/or negotiated pricing, along with data from the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA).

The Government will take the proposed direct labor rates in the CPFF LOE Labor Combined Worksheet within the UPT and evaluate them for realism and reasonableness at a quantity of one hour. Individual rates understated or overstated by greater than or equal to 10.00% of the Government’s established benchmark rate will be further evaluated and could result in upward or downward adjustments to the Offeror’s evaluated price if the justification submitted in the Offeror’s basis of estimate is deemed insufficient. If the proposed rate is a blended rate as described in Section 15.2.4.4 of the ITO, then the adjustment, if necessary, will occur at the blended rate as proposed and not in the buildup of the blended rate.

The sum of all the proposed direct rates in the CPFF Labor Combined Worksheet within the UPT will be compared to the sum of all the evaluated/adjusted direct labor rates that are a result of the cost realism/reasonableness analysis performed on the individual direct labor rates. The Government will calculate the difference between the sum of all evaluated/adjusted direct labor rates and the sum of all proposed direct labor rates.