Atch 8 Section M .docx

Linguist Support Services H92402-23-R-0002 Document Date: 28 February 2023

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

M.1 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

M.1.1 Best Value Introduction Introduction: This section outlines the criteria the Government will use in evaluating the Offeror’s capabilities and proposal for the Linguist Support Services II (LSS II) contract. The Government will compare each Offeror’s capabilities and proposal elements against the predetermined evaluation criteria related to the Government’s requirement defined herein. This is a competitive best value trade-off source selection that will be conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15.3 and Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Part 215.

M.1.2 Evaluation Ratings Assignment The Government will evaluate all proposals received against General and Administrative Qualifying Criteria, Transition Plan, Management Plan, Past Performance, and Contract Price.

M.1.2.1 All Qualifying Criteria, Factor 1, is evaluated on a pass or fail basis.

M.1.2.2 Transition Plan, Factor 2 and Management Plan, Factor 3, are evaluated based on a combined Technical/Risk rating. The Government will conduct evaluations at the element level. Elements will not be assigned a color/risk rating, therefore there will not be a roll-up of elements to create an overall rating for each Factor. Color/risk rating will occur at the Factor level only. Furthermore, there will not be a roll-up of all Factors to create an overall Proposal color/risk rating. Factors 2 and 3 will receive separate color/ risk ratings and stand independently. Small Business Participation will be rated as Acceptable or Not Acceptable. The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the significant strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings.

M.1.2.3 Past Performance, Factor 4, will receive an overall confidence level rating.

M.1.2.4 The Price Volume, Factor 5, will be evaluated for Total Evaluated Price (TEP) but will not receive a color rating or a score.

M.1.2.5 Factor Evaluation Matrix

M.1.3 Evaluation Scales

M.1.3.1 Factor 2 & 3 Evaluation Scales The Combined Technical/Risk Rating will utilize the combined technical/risk ratings descriptions in Table 1. Technical Risk Definitions referenced in Table 1 are defined in Table 2. Significant Strengths, Strengths, Deficiencies, Significant Weaknesses, and Weaknesses, referred in descriptions ratings in Table 1 and 2, are defined as set forth in FAR 15.001 and the DoD Source Selection Procedures.

SECTION M - Table 1. Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

SECTION M-Table 2. Technical Risk Definitions

M.1.3.2 Factor 4 Evaluation Scale The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Past Performance (that meet the recency and relevancy criteria in Section L Table 1) to determine the Government’s overall level of confidence in the Offeror’s ability to successfully perform the required effort. The Confidence Ratings with definitions will be utilized and are contained below:

SECTION M - Table 3. Past Performance Confidence Assessments

Unknown Confidence (Neutral) No recent/relevant performance record is available, or the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

M.1.4 Relative Order of Importance

M.1.4.1 In accordance with FAR 15.304(d), the relative order of importance of evaluation Volumes, Factors, and Subfactors are as follows:

1. After receiving a rating of “Pass” for Factor 1 Qualifying Criteria the remaining Factors will be evaluated.

2. Factor 2, Transition Plan and Factor 3, Management Plan are equal in importance, and significantly more important than Factor 4, Past Performance.

3. Factors 2 through 4, when combined, are significantly more important than Factor 5 Price

M.1.5 Basis for Award To arrive at a source selection decision, the source selection authority will perform an integrated assessment using the evaluation factors described here within Section M. In accordance with FAR 15.101-1, this may result in award being made to the higher rated, potentially higher priced Offeror(s).

M.1.6 Pass/Fail Evaluation (VOLUME 1 – FACTOR 1 – QUALIFYING CRITERIA).

If an Offeror fails any criteria of the Volume 1 (Factor 1) Qualifying Criteria evaluation, the remaining Volumes of the proposal will not be further evaluated, and the Offeror will be removed from the competition (i.e., ineligible for award).

M.1.7 Number of Contractors to be Selected The Government anticipates selecting one contractor for the Linguist Support Services II IDIQ. The Government reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to award no, one, or multiple awardees, depending on the quality of the proposals, the availability of funding, program risks, the continued existence of the requirement and other Government needs.

M.1.8 Rejection of Unrealistic Offers The Government may reject any proposal that is assessed to be unrealistic in terms of program commitments, including contract terms and conditions, or unrealistically low in price when assessed according to Proposal Analysis Techniques prescribed at FAR 15.404-1, such that the proposal is deemed to reflect lack of competence, failure to comprehend the complexity of the program, or presents an unacceptable risk of performance.

M.1.9 Proposal Evaluation 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 Volumes or Factors to be eligible for award. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the Offeror being removed from consideration for award. Any exceptions to the solicitation's terms and conditions must be fully explained and justified.

M.1.10 Competitive Range Determination In accordance with FAR 15.306(c), the Government may (but is not obligated to) make a competitive range determination. If made, the determination will be based on an initial evaluation of the Factors listed in M.1.2.5. The competitive range will include only those proposals most highly rated after initial evaluation and may further be limited for efficiency purposes, if it is deemed to be in the Government’s best interest.

M.1.10.1 The Government will base the initial evaluation of proposals and the initial determination of the competitive range upon a review of the submitted proposals, and consider any information exchanged during communications as defined in FAR 15.306 if necessary. The Government will discontinue evaluation of any proposal which is not considered to be in the competitive range after initial evaluations. The Contracting Officer will promptly notify Offerors of any decision to exclude them from the competitive range, whereupon they may request and receive a debriefing in accordance with FAR 15.505.

The Government reserves the right in its sole discretion to award without discussions if the evaluation shows that it is in the Government’s best interest. If an award without discussions decision is made by the Source Selection Authority, a competitive range will not be established, discussions will not be conducted, nor will FPRs be requested. For this reason, it is highly encouraged that an Offeror submits its best offer initially to the Government in response to the proposal (vice waiting for FPRs).

M.1.11 Discussions The Government intends to hold written or oral discussions with all Offerors within the competitive range. The intent of these discussions is to obtain the best value based upon the requirements and evaluation Factors set forth in Section M. The scope and extent of discussions are at the discretion of the Contracting Officer, and the Contracting Officer will tailor discussions to each Offeror’s proposal. The Government may remove an Offeror from the competitive range at any point during discussions, whether all material aspects of the proposal have been discussed, if the Offeror is no longer considered to be one of the most highly rated. When the Government concludes discussions, it will give all Offerors within the competitive range the opportunity to submit a final revised proposal by the date and time identified by the Contracting Officer.

M.1.12 Final Proposal Revisions If discussions are conducted (see M.1.11. above), final proposal revisions (FPR) will be required in determining the award of the contract resulting from this Request for Proposal (RFP). Offerors are advised that unsupported FPR responses may lower the overall proposal evaluation. Offerors are further advised that any information generated in the course of discussions must be incorporated into the FPR; the Government will only consider the Offeror’s FPR for final evaluation purposes.

M.1.13 Offer Acceptance A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful Offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer's specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer whether there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received from the Offeror before award.

M.2 VOLUME 1 – FACTOR 1 – QUALIFYING CRITERIA.

Information submitted for the qualifying criteria in accordance with Section L.2 will be evaluated to determine if the proposal meets the definition below to “pass.” If the Offeror fails any of the qualifying criteria, they will “fail” to qualify and in accordance with M.1.6 be removed from the competition. The Offerors will be assessed as passed if the minimum requirements defined below have been met:

M.2.1 Facility Clearance. The Offeror provided proof of final cleared TOP SECRET Facility as accredited by the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA). The Offeror provided proof of SECRET storage of information. The Offeror met all the requirements of the DD254 showing proof of clearance, storage, etc.

M.2.2 Cybersecurity Compliance. The Offeror submitted a NIST Cyber Assessment Tool Certification that demonstrates a passing cybersecurity rating of 105 of the 110 controls in accordance with NIST SP 800-171 Revision 2 guidelines.

M.2.3 Initial Capability. The Offeror met the required 70% completion of the Initial Capability Workbook (Attachment 6) for Linguists and 100% completion of the Initial Capability workbook for Key Personnel: Transition Manager, Program Manager, Deputy Program Manager as well as the Assistant Program Manager, On-site Manager and On-site Coordinator. A Full Time Equivalent (FTE) entry in the Initial Capability Workbook will only be considered complete if all associated fields are completed and all required supporting documentation is provided per the instructions in Section L.3.1.5.

M.2.4 Defense Base Act Coverage. The Offeror provided a quote from a DBA Insurance Provider based on 109 OCONUS FTEs and site locations listed in Attachment 4, Site Map.

M.2.5 Novation Disclosure. The Offeror submitted a complete Novation Disclosure or confirmed in writing that no Novation Disclosure is applicable.

M.2.6 Screening Facility Verification. The Offeror provided a lease, contingent lease, or other binding document validating ability to provide a Screening Facility at the time of award that meets the requirements detailed in the Statement of Work.

M.2.7. Subcontracting Plan. If the Offeror is Other than Small Business under NAICS code 541930, the Offeror provided a Subcontracting Plan that meets the minimum requirements in FAR Part 19.704 addressing every subpart (a) (1) through (a) (15). If the Offeror is a Small Business under NAICS code 541930, a Subcontracting Plan is not required. The Subcontracting Plan, if required is based upon offeror’s business size in the required NAICS, will be evaluated as Pass or Fail. If the Offeror submits a plan they will be evaluated as Pass. If the Offeror does not submit a plan they will be evaluated as Fail.

M.3 VOLUME 2 – FACTOR 2 – TRANSITION PLAN.

Under this Factor, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to providing sound business practices, processes, and expertise in the management approach to transition linguists to a new contract and determine whether the proposal exceeds, meets, or does not meet the requirements. This plan will become part of any resultant contract award as an attachment.

M.3.1 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s plan to accomplish Transition. This evaluation includes the extent to which the Offeror’s plan provides a detailed approach by describing its plan to recruit, manage, deploy, and transition the requirement from the incumbent vendor to the successful Offeror within 120 days of Contract Award. Transition plans that include large incumbent linguist capture and/or linguists that are presently employed by the offeror represent a lower risk to contract performance, and therefore, will be rated higher than a plan that relies heavily on new hires.

M.3.1.1 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s capability to execute a smooth and seamless phase-in/transition leading to assumption of full contractual responsibility and full FTE requirement no later than 120 days after contract award. The Offeror will be evaluated based on its approach to insert, withdraw, and support/manage CONUS employees and OCONUS deployed employees in a hostile fire area.

M.3.1.2 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s plan that explains how each activity will be completed in a timely manner, identifies its phase-in management team, and describes its approach for interfacing with the incumbent contractor. The Government will evaluate how the Offeror can transition its personnel into incumbent contractor personnel positions, paying special attention to the unique nature of OCONUS locations that require visas, travel coordination (to include US military coordination and transportation), unique skill sets that are required per the SOW, and the ability to plan for site specific requirements prior to Offeror personnel deployment. The Offeror will be evaluated based on the extent to which the Offeror has infrastructure and established procedures to insert, withdraw and support/manage OCONUS deployed employees in a hostile fire area.

M.3.1.3 The Government will evaluate the degree to which the Offeror plans to hire/utilize personnel currently performing this effort with the incumbent contractor and/or its subcontractor(s). The Offeror will be evaluated based on the extent to which the Offeror has incumbent capture business practices and procedures which will meet the timeline requirements of the contract.

M.3.1.4 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s plan for insertion of non-incumbent employees in the event incumbent employees decline employment with their company and/or its subcontractors or are otherwise unavailable for work under this requirement. Offerors will be rated based on their ability to utilize their existing employees and existing linguist pool to meet the linguist requirement without relying on incumbent capture. Transition plans that utilize a larger percentage of existing employees (in the event that incumbent employees decline employment with their company and/or its subcontractors or are otherwise unavailable for work under this requirement) represent a lower risk to contract performance, and therefore, will be rated higher than a plan that does not use a large percent of existing employees.

M.3.1.5 The Government will review the Initial Capability Workbook to determine the overall likelihood that the Offeror can meet the contractual requirement without degradation of service.

M.3.1.5.1 Attachment J-6, Initial Capability Workbook. The Government requires each prime Offeror to fill out the attachment numbered J-6 to the solicitation entitled Initial Capability Workbook. This document will provide the matrix of the Offeror’s (including teammates/subcontractors) ability to provide the requisite number of individual FTEs to meet the requirements spelled out in the Statement of Work, Attachment J-1. The Offeror will complete the attachment to include all columns and provide copies of each linguist’s test from a certified test agency.. All information is subject to verification. Offerors with a deeper pool of linguist candidates listed in the workbook will be rated higher.

M.3.1.5.2 Letters of Commitment. Not separately assessed as they are assessed as part of the Initial Capability Workbook.

M.4 VOLUME 3 – FACTOR 3 – MANAGEMENT PLAN.

M.4.1 Factor 3 Element 1 – Management Plan:

M.4.1.2 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s plan to train new employees in compliance with the SOW requirements. The Offeror’s training plan will be evaluated to ascertain if the Offeror comprehends the skill sets required to support this effort and the currency of its methods.

M.4.1.3 The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror has actual verifiable experience, infrastructure, and established procedures to insert, withdraw and support/manage OCONUS deployed employees in a hostile fire area.

M.4.1.4 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s human resources protocols and plans (e.g., first contact, screening, interview, language testing, and security verification) for staff hiring, recruitment and retention plans, and marketing efforts that are currently in place or planned to identify qualified linguists, Transition Manager, Program Manager, Deputy Program Manager, Assistant Program Manager, On-Site Managers, and On-Site Coordinators for this effort.

M.4.1.5 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s plan to maintain continuity of operations, while simultaneously managing events such as scheduled leave, family/medical emergencies, etc.

M.4.2 Factor 3 Element 2 – Key Personnel.

M.4.2.1 For each proposed candidate, the Offeror shall include:

M.4.2.1.1 Resumes are required to be submitted for all Key Personnel, that are not to exceed 2 pages for each Key Personnel. Resumes do not count towards page limitations for this volume. Resumes shall include (but are not limited to the following information):

M.4.2.1.2 The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Transition Manager’s resume and underlying experience demonstrates possession of the minimum qualifications in accordance with Attachment 1, Statement of Work, Para 4.2.2. The Government will further consider whether, and to what extent, the Transition Manager’s resume and underlying experience exceeds those minimum qualifications.

M.4.2.1.3 The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Program Manager’s resume and underlying experience demonstrates possession of the minimum qualifications in accordance with Attachment 1, Statement of Work, Para 4.2.3. The Government will further consider whether, and to what extent, the Program Manager’s resume and underlying experience exceeds those minimum qualifications.

M.4.2.1.4 The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Deputy Program Manager’s resume and underlying experience demonstrates possession of the minimum qualifications in accordance with Attachment 1, Statement of Work, Para 4.2.3. The Government will further consider whether, and to what extent, the Deputy Program Manager’s resume and underlying experience exceeds those minimum qualifications.

M.4.3 Factor 3 Element 3 – Small Business Participation.

M.4.3.1 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Small Business Objective as Acceptable or Not Acceptable. In order to be acceptable, the proposed goals for this procurement must at a minimum meet the minimum goal percentage for each socio-economic category as identified in section L.

M.5 VOLUME 4 – FACTOR 4 - PAST PERFORMANCE.

The Past Performance evaluation considers the Offeror’s (to include proposed subcontractor(s)) demonstrated record of performance in providing services that meet users’ needs. Past Performance evaluation will focus on how well the Offeror performed or is performing on other recent and relevant efforts. For proposed subcontractor(s), evaluation will focus solely on work that the subcontractor is proposed to perform under this contract.

M.5.1 The Government will conduct a review and evaluation of all performance data obtained to determine how closely the work performed under those efforts relates to the current requirement utilizing the recency and relevancy criteria outlined in Section L. All efforts meeting the recency criteria will be assessed for relevancy. For those efforts determined Somewhat Relevant or higher, a performance evaluation will be conducted based on the data gathered by both interviews with those references provided in the Offeror’s Past/Present Performance Information Questionnaires, and CPARS reports as available through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS). The Government is not limited to these resources. A performance rating will be established for each effort for which a performance evaluation is conducted utilizing the same performance rating definitions contained within the CPARS.

M.5.2 Once all data has been gathered, the Government will assign a confidence rating considering the Offeror’s team’s overall recent/relevant performance record.

The Past Performance evaluation considers the Offeror’s demonstrated record of performance in providing services and products that meet the users’ needs and in Past Performance regarding subcontracting. Past Performance evaluation shall focus on the recency and relevancy as defined in Section L.5.2 regarding how well the contractor performed or is performing the same or similar type of work under other Government contracts.

M.5.3 The assessment will be used to determine the probability of successful accomplishment of this effort. The Government’s assessment will focus on the Past Performance of the Offeror and its proposed sub-contractors as it relates to the solicitation requirements such as cost, schedule, and performance (to specifically include previous contract fill rates).

M.5.4 The Offeror’s record of activity identifying potential problems, as well as their ability to resolve actual problems with minimal impact of contract performance; the Offeror’s adherence to contract schedules, including the administration aspects of performance, the Offeror’s history of reasonableness and cooperative behavior and commitment to customer satisfaction; and the Offeror’s demonstrated ability to deliver services without claims or contract adjustments. In short, the evaluation will focus on the Offeror’s ability to deliver quality services relative to this solicitation, on time, on budget, and at a reasonable cost.

M.5.4.1 Past Performance evaluation will consider Past Performance information regarding predecessor companies (e.g., “buy outs” and name changes-see Section L.2.5 Novation Disclosure) and/or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to this acquisition.

M.5.4.2 Past Performance information will be obtained through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting Systems (CPARS), similar systems of other Government departments and agencies, questionnaires tailored to the circumstances of this acquisition, Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) channels, interviews with Program Managers and Contracting Officers, or other sources known to the Government, including commercial sources. Offerors should note that, in conducting this assessment, the Government reserves the right to use both data provided by the Offeror and data obtained from other sources however the Government is not limited to these resources.

M.5.4.3 Past Performance Rating Methodology - A significant achievement, problem, or lack of relevant data in any element of work can become an important consideration in the source selection process. A negative finding under any aspect may result in an overall low confidence rating. Therefore, Offerors are reminded to include all (up to the limit of five references) relevant past efforts regardless of perceived evaluation rating. Each contract submitted by the Offeror to substantiate Past Performance will be rated for relevancy by the Government and a rating of Highly Relevant, Relevant, Somewhat Relevant, or Not Relevant will be assigned (See Table 1, Section L.5.2.2). This relevancy rating will be used when considering how much weight to ascribe to each contract in determining the overall confidence rating. Contract Performance assessments will be made based upon the Offeror’s demonstrated performance in the assessed Volumes of evaluation.

M.6 VOLUME 5 – FACTOR 5 – PRICE.

Price will be evaluated using price analysis techniques in order to determine that it is fair and reasonable IAW FAR 15.404. Price proposals will be evaluated for reasonableness, price realism (compensation plan only), unbalanced pricing, completeness, a clear understanding of the requirements, and consistency with the Offeror’s technical proposal. Compensation plans will be evaluated to ensure it reflects a sound management approach and ability to provide uninterrupted high-quality services.

M6.1 Compensation Plan. The Government will evaluate the compensation plan required for personnel proposed as prime and subcontractors (if applicable) to ensure the Offeror’s plan reflects a sound management approach and understanding of the requirement, as well as the Offeror’s ability to provide uninterrupted high-quality services. The compensation plan(s) proposed will be assessed in terms of its impact on recruiting and retention. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposed compensation plan(s) reflect a clear understanding of the work to be performed and demonstrate the capability to obtain and retain suitably qualified personnel to meet mission objectives. The compensation plan will be evaluated in accordance with FAR 52.222-46, Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees (Feb 1993). Any Compensation Plan(s) evaluated as being unrealistically low without valid explanation may be considered to present unacceptable risk to the Government.

M.6.2 Total Evaluated Price. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Total Evaluated Price (TEP) as calculated in Attachment J-13 – Awardable Task Order 01 Price Workbook, TEP tab.

M.7 Basis of Award. To arrive at a source selection decision, the Source Selection Authority (SSA) will perform an integrated assessment using the evaluation factors described above, including a tradeoff process. This may result in an award being made to a higher rated, higher priced offeror where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors.