Atch 3 Section M.pdf

DRAFT - H9240025RE002

M1.0 General Information

M1.1 Source Selection Method This is a best value source selection in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15, Contracting by Negotiation, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and the Department of the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DAFFARS). The best value source selection process is Highest Technically Rated Offeror (HTRO) with a Fair and Reasonable Price (FRP). HTRO is a source selection process where the Government ranks all offerors technical proposals from highest-to-lowest in accordance with the solicitation and the highest validated scoring offeror with a reasonable/realistic price is selected for award.

M1.2 Number of Contracts to Be Awarded

(U) The Government intends to award up to fifteen (15) contracts as a result of this solicitation. However, the Government reserves the right to not award a contract at all as a result of this solicitation.

M1.3 Exchanges Initial proposals must contain the best and final offer as the Government plans to award without discussions. The Government may conduct clarifications as described in FAR 15.306. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary.

Should exchanges be conducted, the Offeror’s response(s) to Evaluation Notices (ENs) will be considered in making the award selection decision. The Government may conduct exchanges either orally or in writing, and may issue questions to some, none, or all Offerors.

Any discrepancies (defined as: difference between conflicting facts or claims or opinions) will be treated as clarifications but may not result in any changes to the proposal or submission of new supporting documentation.

M1.4 Solicitation Requirements, Terms, and Conditions Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representation and certification, and technical requirements, in addition to those requirements identified in Volume II and III. 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 solicitation terms and conditions and most provide complete supporting rationale. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions as unacceptable.

M2.0 Basis for Contract Award The Government intends to award a multiple-award Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract to up to fifteen (15) offerors so long as at least fifteen (15) proposals are eligible for award. Within the best value continuum, FAR

15.101 defines best value as using any one or a combination of source selection approaches. The source selection process under this Solicitation will not be based on the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) or Tradeoff process. Award will be made to the Offerors whose proposals are the best value to the Government based upon a Highest Technically Rated (HTRO) approach. The HTRO approach will best achieve the objective of awarding a contract to the Offerors of varying core expertise in a variety of service disciplines with qualities that are most important to SOCOM.

The Government intends to strictly enforce all the proposal submission requirements outlined in Section L. Failure to comply with these requirements may result in an Offeror’s proposal being non-compliant to the Solicitation and rejected.

M2.1 General Evaluation Processes The Government will conduct a two (2) step evaluation process as stated below

STEP ONE: First, an acceptability (solicitation conformance) review will take place, as specified in Section M4.1 Volume 1 (a). Any proposal that includes incomplete information or does not comply with the instructions set forth in this solicitation and minimum submission requirements may be removed from consideration for award without further evaluation. If a proposal does not pass step one, it will be removed from the list of the top 15 highest scoring proposals and the next highest ranked proposal that was not included in the list of the top 15 will be added to the list to maintain 15 proposals in the evaluation process. This process will repeat until a total of fifteen Offerors have passed the acceptability review or all proposals have completed the acceptability review, whichever comes first.

STEP TWO: For those proposals which have passed Steps one and two, the Government will rank all proposals received in response to this solicitation in numeric order based on the Offeror’s submitted self-score. The Government will then validate / substantiate the Offeror’s Self-Score by assessing the Offeror’s proposal submission in comparison to the self-scores stated in the Offeror’s Self Scoring worksheet. If the data on the Offeror’s Self-Scoring worksheet is not substantiated and/or validated by the Government and a reduction in score is necessary, the Government will check to see if the reduction displaces the highest self-scored proposal that is not in the list of the “Top Fifteen”. If so, the next highest rated self-score proposal will begin at “STEP ONE”.

Once the “Top Fifteen” proposal scores have been verified and validated (in accordance with the above process), the Government will then begin price evaluation (Factor 2) to determine if the proposed price is fair and reasonable, and realistic (total compensation plan (TCP)) in accordance with Section M6.0. In the event this offeror’s proposed price is determined not to be Fair and Reasonable or the TCP is determined unrealistic, then the Offeror will be eliminated from further consideration for award (unless discussions are determined necessary) and the next highest rated proposal identified will start the process, beginning with “STEP ONE” above.

CAUTION: In the event the evaluation team discovers an inaccurate Self-Score with numerous point deductions based on ambiguous, deceptive, faulty, misleading, or inadequate supporting documentation, the Offeror shall immediately be eliminated from further consideration for award.

This cycle will continue until the Government has verified and validated Factor 1 and determined that Offeror’s proposed price to be Fair and Reasonable and Realistic for the “Top Fifteen”.

The Government will then complete the Contractor Responsibility Determination (CRD) requirements IAW FAR Part 9 for the “Top Fifteen”. If determined to be responsible, those Offeror’s proposals will represent the HTRO -- Highest Technically Rated Offeror, as providing the Best Value to the Government in accordance with this solicitation.

M3.0 RESERVED

M4.0 Volume I - Executive Summary/Contract Documentation/Responsibility The Offerors shall propose Volume I Executive Summary/Contract Documentation/Responsibility in accordance with Section L. Volume I will be evaluated as an acceptability review and as a acceptable/unacceptable criteria as described below. If the Offeror does not submit any portion of Volume I, as required by Section L, they will be determined to be unresponsive, and the Government reserves the right to determine the Offeror ineligible for award.

M4.1 Volume I (a) – Administrative Documentation The acceptability review consists of submitting all the documents according to instructions (within this solicitation) and meeting all the minimum requirements set forth in Section L. Offerors who fail any of the minimum requirements in the acceptability review will be removed from consideration for award and notified, in writing, as soon as practicable.

Offerors that pass all the minimum requirements in this review will be further evaluated in accordance with Section M., below. The overall responsibility determination will be evaluated in accordance with FAR Part 9. Offerors that are not deemed responsible will not be considered for award.

The Government will check that support documentation (i.e., work samples, cross reference matrix, self-scoring worksheet, price template, etc.) exists for all the evaluation criteria and that the documents are completed in accordance with the directions specified in this solicitation. In the event that a proposal does not conform to the solicitation or lacks supporting documentation, the Government will eliminate the proposal from further evaluation and consideration.

An Offeror must submit an acceptable Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) Mitigation Plan, must be deemed responsible in accordance with FAR Subpart 9.1, and must conform to the solicitation requirements and instructions set forth in Section L for Volume I to receive a “Pass” rating. The OCI Mitigation Plan will be evaluated in accordance with FAR Subpart 9.5, Organizational and Consultant Conflicts of Interest and DFARS Subpart 209.5. If the OCI Mitigation Plan is considered to be incomplete or unacceptable the Government reserves the right to determine the Offeror ineligible for award.

M5.0 Volume II – FACTOR 1: Technical Proposal and Substantiating Data The USG Evaluation Team will validate the overall proposed technical score by evaluating the substantiated documentation submitted by the Offeror per the Self-Scoring Matrix category. Technical score adjustments will be made only if the substantiated documentation does not validate the scores; however, any adjustments will only be made in a downward direction. The USG Evaluation Team will use Attachment XX (Cross Reference Matrix) as the initial reference for the validation process. If there is any discrepancy between Attachment XX and the substantiated documentation provided, the substantiated documentation will be given precedence.

M5.1 Self-Scoring Matrix Scoring Categories (General Score Sheet Tab)

M5.1.1 Category 1: Total Positions on a Single Work Sample EVALUATION BASIS: Number of personnel providing support at on a single work sample. To validate the Offeror’s self-score, the Government will corroborate the substantiated documentation by reviewing the work sample information for accuracy. The Offeror’s points will be validated based on the number of positions providing support. The self-scoring matrix will cap maximum count at 50.

M5.1.2 Category 2: Concurrent Performance at Various Geographic Sites EVALUATION BASIS: To validate the Offeror’s self-score, the Government will corroborate the substantiated documentation by reviewing the work samples information for accuracy. The Offeror’s points will be validated based on the number sites identified in the work samples where work is performed by their geographic location [CONUS, OCONUS (excluding Germany and Korea), OCONUS (Only Germany and Korea)]. The self-scoring matrix will cap maximum count at 25 per location.

M5.1.3 Category 3: Percentage of Awarded Billets (Minimum Of 25 Billets) Hired or Transitioned Onto a Contract Within 30 Days of Award EVALUATION BASIS: To validate the Offeror’s self-score, the Government will corroborate the substantiated documentation by reviewing the work sample information for accuracy. This category is limited to one (1) Tier 1 work sample. The Offeror’s points will be validated based on the percentage of awarded billets hired or transitioned onto a contract within 30 days of award. The self-scoring matrix will calculate the score based on the percentage entered on the self-score worksheet.

M5.1.4 Category 4: FTE Positions with TS/SCI (at a Single Point in Time) EVALUATION BASIS: To validate the Offeror’s self-score, the Government will corroborate the substantiated documentation by reviewing the work sample information for accuracy. This category is limited to one (1) Tier 1 or one

(1) Tier 3 work sample. The Offeror’s points will be validated based on the number of FTE positions with TS/SCI clearances at a single point in time. The Government may also review current clearance status in Government databases.

The self-scoring matrix will cap maximum count at 100.

M5.1.5 Category 5: Work Samples that Contain the Following LCATs EVALUATION BASIS: To validate the Offeror’s self-score, the Government will corroborate the substantiated documentation by reviewing the work samples information for accuracy. The Offeror’s points will be validated based on the number of LCATs identified on each work sample. The self-scoring matrix will cap maximum count at 75.

M5.1.6 Category 6: Work Samples that Cover the Requirements in the SOW EVALUATION BASIS: To validate the Offeror’s self-score, the Government will corroborate the substantiated documentation by reviewing the work samples information for accuracy. The Offeror’s points will be validated based whether that work sample covers the requirements identified in the SOW. The Government may also review current clearance status in Government databases. The self-scoring matrix will cap maximum count at 5 per SOW requirement.

M5.1.6 Category 7: Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) EVALUATION BASIS: To validate the Offeror’s self-score, the Government will review the narrative and rating of the fully completed CPARS report submitted by the Offeror and compare it with the Offeror’s total percent entry for the past performance scoring categories that were rated “Exceptional”, “Very Good”, “Satisfactory”, “Marginal”, or

Commented [CT1]: Including in Draft?

“Unsatisfactory.” The Government reserves the right to retrieve past performance data from government repositories to validate the past performance data submitted by the Offeror.

If a work sample does not have a CPAR, then that work sample will not be scored in this category. If all work samples do not have a work sample, then the Offeror will receive zero (0) points in this category.

Important: The Government must be able to validate adjectival CPARS report ratings for EACH period of performance (PoP) of the contract/task order that is submitted as a work sample. For example, if a work sample PoP is three (3) years at the time of the solicitation release, the Government will need to validate all CPARS reports from that work sample, i.e., 3 total

M5.2 Self-Scoring Matrix Scoring Categories (Education Tab)

M5.2.1 Category 1: Total Education and Training Positions on a Single Work Sample EVALUATION BASIS: To validate the Offeror’s self-score, the Government will corroborate the substantiated documentation by reviewing the work sample information for accuracy. This category is limited to one (1) Tier 1 work sample. The Offeror’s points will be validated based on the number of positions providing education and training support.

The self-scoring matrix will cap maximum count at 150.

M5.2.2 Category 5: Work Samples that Contain the Following Five (5) LCATs EVALUATION BASIS: To validate the Offeror’s self-score, the Government will corroborate the substantiated documentation by reviewing the work samples information for accuracy. The Offeror’s points will be validated based on the number of LCATs identified on each work sample with a maximum of 15 per LCAT. The self-scoring matrix will cap maximum count at 75.

M5.2.3 Category 6: Work Samples That Cover the Education and Training Requirements in the SOW EVALUATION BASIS: To validate the Offeror’s self-score, the Government will corroborate the substantiated documentation by reviewing the work samples information for accuracy. The Offeror’s points will be validated based whether that work sample covers the education and training requirements identified in the SOW. The self-scoring matrix will cap maximum count at 5 per SOW requirement.

M5.3 Self-Scoring Matrix Scoring Categories (Exercise Tab)

M5.3.1 Category 1: Total Exercise Support Positions on a Single Work Sample EVALUATION BASIS: To validate the Offeror’s self-score, the Government will corroborate the substantiated documentation by reviewing the work sample information for accuracy. This category is limited to one (1) Tier 1 work sample. The Offeror’s points will be validated based on the number of positions providing exercise support. The self-scoring matrix will cap maximum count at 150.

M5.3.2 Category 5: Work Samples that Contain the Following Three (3) LCATs EVALUATION BASIS: To validate the Offeror’s self-score, the Government will corroborate the substantiated documentation by reviewing the work samples information for accuracy. The Offeror’s points will be validated based on the number of LCATs identified on each work sample with a maximum of 25 per LCAT. The self-scoring matrix will cap maximum count at 75.

M5.3.3 Category 6: Work Samples That Cover the Exercise Planning and Execution Requirements in the SOW EVALUATION BASIS: To validate the Offeror’s self-score, the Government will corroborate the substantiated documentation by reviewing the work samples information for accuracy. The Offeror’s points will be validated based whether that work sample covers the exercise planning and execution requirements identified in the SOW. The self-scoring matrix will cap maximum count at 5 per SOW requirement and 150 for total exercise role players.

M5.4 Self-Scoring Matrix Scoring Categories (Intelligence Tab)

M5.4.1 Category 1: Total Intelligence Support Positions on a Single Work Sample EVALUATION BASIS: To validate the Offeror’s self-score, the Government will corroborate the substantiated documentation by reviewing the work sample information for accuracy. This category is limited to one (1) Tier 1 work sample. The Offeror’s points will be validated based on the number of positions providing intelligence support. The self-scoring matrix will cap maximum count at 150.

M5.4.2 Category 5: Work Samples that Contain the Following Three (3) LCATs EVALUATION BASIS: To validate the Offeror’s self-score, the Government will corroborate the substantiated documentation by reviewing the work samples information for accuracy. The Offeror’s points will be validated based on the number of LCATs identified on each work sample with a maximum of 25 per LCAT. The self-scoring matrix will cap maximum count at 75.

M5.4.3 Category 6: Work Samples That Cover the Intelligence Requirements in the SOW EVALUATION BASIS: To validate the Offeror’s self-score, the Government will corroborate the substantiated documentation by reviewing the work samples information for accuracy. The Offeror’s points will be validated based whether that work sample covers the intelligence requirements identified in the SOW. The self-scoring matrix will cap maximum count at 5 per SOW requirement and 150 for total exercise role players.

M5.5 Burden of Proof The burden of proof for substantiating points in the self-score point system rests with the Offeror. The technical volume shall contain sufficient data to substantiate the points claimed in the Offeror’s proposal. Examples of documentation that when responsive and in the form/substance customarily utilized in federal acquisition and business operations typically would constitute sufficient data includes, but is not limited to:

Contract Documentation (award document, FPDS report, Statement of Work, Performance Work Statement, solicitation document, invoice, CDRLs, etc.) and/or, Business Systems Documents (payroll data, banking information, timecard system outputs, etc.) and/or Operational Documentation (management/production/HR/etc. reports, recruiting documents, employment offers, employee rosters, etc.).

The submission of extracts may be appropriate and is permissible since it is not necessary to provide entire documents that include many pages of extraneous information, but extracts shall be clearly marked to indicate the clearly verifiable source. Use the cell in the self-scoring spreadsheet to indicate section and page number references that substantiate scores in the indicated row/column. Do not merely include a full document without specific reference to the section of the document that pertains to the proposal. It is not the Government’s responsibility to search through documentation provided without any clear, concise cross reference.

M6.0 Pricing The Government will provide additional details at the release of the full RFP.

ADDENDUM A: LABOR CATEGORY DESCRIPTIONS FOR VALIDATION

This addendum is for Government validation of offeror’s self-score and is not intended to be performance requirements. The SOW functional area (Section X.X) details are included in the below descriptions.

These descriptions may encompass many or additional facets of each LCAT. The Government will use these descriptions, in addition to the SOW functional area details, to validate the Offeror’s substantiated documentation for their selfscoreself-score. Please see attachment titled “LCAT Descriptions” for detailed descriptions of the various LCATs listed on our HTRO Self Score attachment.