Att 4 - JGASS-II Section M.pdf

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

SECTION M FULL TEXT

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

M.1 Best Value Introduction:

This section outlines the criteria the Government will use in evaluating the Offeror’s capabilities and proposal for the Joint Geospatial Analysis Support Services contract. The Government will compare each Offeror’s proposal elements against the predetermined evaluation criteria related to the Government’s requirement defined herein. This is a competitive, best value, trade-off process, source selection that will be conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15.101-1 and 15.3 and Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Part 215.

M.1.1 Evaluation Ratings Assignment:

The Government will evaluate all proposals received against General and Administrative Qualifying Criteria (Factor 1). Those that “pass” the General and Administrative Qualifying Criteria evaluation will then be evaluated against Transition Plan (Factor 2), Corporate Experience and Management (Factor 3), and Price (Factor 5). If the offeror determined to be in the final competitive range, the Government will request and evaluate an Oral Presentation (Factor 4). All General and Administrative Qualifying Criteria are evaluated on a pass or fail basis. A Combined Technical/Risk Rating will be used to evaluate Factor 2 Transition Plan, Factor 3 Corporate Experience and Management, and Factor 4 Oral Presentations. The Price Factor (Factor 5) will not be given a color rating or scored but rather be evaluated to determine if the price is fair and reasonable.

M.1.2 Factor Evaluation Matrix:

Evaluation Item Factors Evaluation General and Administrative Qualifying Criteria Factor 1 Pass/Fail

Transition Plan Factor 2 Combined Technical/Risk Rating

Corporate Experience and Management Factor 3 Combined Technical/Risk Rating

Oral Presentations Factor 4 Combined Technical/Risk Rating

Price Factor 5 Total Evaluated Price (All Options)

M.1.3 Evaluation Scales

M.1.3.1 Factor 1 Evaluation Scale:

The General Administrative and Qualifying Criteria (Factor 1) will be evaluated based on the following rating scale:

Evaluation Findings Definitions DEFICIENCY Is a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable.

WEAKNESS Means a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

SIGNIFICANT WEAKNESS Means a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

RISK As it pertains to source selection, risk is the potential for unsuccessful contract performance. The consideration of risk assesses the degree to which an offeror’s proposed approach to achieve the technical factor or subfactor may involve risk of disruption of schedule or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

STRENGTH

Is an aspect of an offeror’s proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

M.1.4 Relative Order of Importance:

Per FAR 15.304(d) the relative order of importance of evaluation factors are as follows:

If a proposal receives a rating of “Pass” in Factor 1 – General and Administrative Qualifying Criteria;

Tradeoffs will be accomplished between Non-Price Factors and Price.

Factors are listed in descending order of importance.

Factor 2 – Transition Plan Factor 3 – Corporate Experience and Management Factor 4 – Oral Presentation Factor 5 – Price

Factor 2 Transition Plan is “significantly more important” than Factor 3 Corporate Experience and Management. Factor 3 is “significantly more important” than Factor 4 Oral Presentation. All evaluation Factors other than Price, when combined, are “significantly more important” than Price. It should be noted that as proposals approach equality across the non-price factors; the Price factor plays a more important role in the Best Value Award Decision.

M.1.5 Basis for Award:

To arrive at a source selection decision, the Source Selection Authority (SSA) will perform an integrated assessment using the evaluation factors described here within Section M. Per FAR 15.101-1, this may result in award being made to the higher rated, potentially higher priced Offeror(s). Alternatively, award may be made to a lower rated, lower priced Offeror where the benefits of the higher rated offeror are not determined to be worth the higher price.

M.1.6 Number of Contractors to be selected:

The Government anticipates selecting one contractor for the –Joint Geospatial Analysis Support Services II Contract.

M.1.7 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, unreasonably high or unrealistically low, in price when compared to Government estimates, such that the proposal is deemed to reflect lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program.

M.1.8 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 areas 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, even then, an Offeror may still be removed from consideration for award.

M.1.9 Competitive Range Determination:

In accordance with FAR 15.306(c), the Government intends to make one or more competitive range determinations. If made, the determination will be based on an initial evaluation of the General and Administrative Qualifying Criteria (Factor 1), Transition Plan (Factor 2), Corporate Experience and Management (Factor 3), and Cost/Price (Factor 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. The Government will base the initial evaluation of proposals and the initial determination of the competitive range upon a review of the submitted proposals.

The Government will discontinue evaluation of any proposal which is not considered to be in the competitive range.

M.1.10 Discussions:

The Government intends to hold written and/or oral discussions with all Offerors within the competitive range. The purpose 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 or not 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 final competitive range the opportunity to submit a Final Proposal Revision (FPR) by a date and time identified by the Contracting Officer.

M.1.11 Final Proposal Revisions:

After discussions are conducted (see M.1.10. above), Final Proposal Revisions (FPR) will be required in determining the award of the contract resulting from this RFP. Offerors are advised that unsupported FPR responses may lower the overall proposal evaluation.

M.1.12 Offer Acceptance:

A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer emailed 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 unless a written notice of withdrawal is received from the Offeror before award.

M.1.13 Disqualification:

The term disqualification as used in this solicitation means that the Offeror is no longer considered for award. If an Offeror is disqualified in accordance with the criteria spelled out in this solicitation, their proposal will not be evaluated and they are ineligible for contract award.

M.2 Factor 1 General and Administrative Qualifying Criteria (Volume 1):

Information submitted for the qualifying criteria per Section L.2 will be evaluated to determine if the proposal meets the definition below in order to “pass.” The Offerors will be assessed as passed if the requirements in M.2.1 – M.2.8 have been met. In the event an Offeror fails to meet any of the requirements in M.2.1 – M.2.8, the proposal will not be evaluated further and the offer will be eliminated from further consideration for award.

M.2.1 Contract Forms and Certifications:

The Offeror must include all information required in the cover letter, completed and signed SF 33 (to include all amendments), completed Sections A through K, and state all terms, conditions, and pricing remain valid for 210 days from the proposal submission date. The Government assesses the Offeror has no unmitigated organizational conflicts of interest.

M.2.2 Facility Clearance:

The Prime Offeror must have a Top Secret Facility Clearance as accredited by the National Industrial Security System (NISS) at the time of proposal submission.

M.2.3 Adequate Business Systems:

The Prime Offeror must have adequate business systems and the Contracting Officer has determined that the contractor’s accounting system will permit timely development of all necessary cost data for the cost type CLINs and the negotiation of cost in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulations and applicable supplements.

M.2.4 Line of Credit:

The Prime Offeror must have a sufficient line of credit or reserved liquid capital that meets the minimum of at least 25% of their proposed base year costs.

M.2.5 Excluded Parties List:

The Contracting Officer has determined that the Prime Offeror is not on the Excluded Parties List.

M.2.6 Small Business Subcontracting Plan:

The Offeror provided a Small Business Subcontracting Plan that meets the minimum requirements in FAR Part 19.704 addressing every subpart (a) (1) through (a) (11). This plan will become part of any resultant contact award as an attachment.

M.2.7 Afghanistan Business License:

The Prime Offeror provided proof of possession of a current valid Afghani Business License.

M.2.8 International Standards Organization/International Organization of Standards (ISO) Certification:

The Prime Offeror provided proof of current ISO 9000:2015 or 9001:2015 certification.

M.3 Factor 2 Transition Plan (Volume 2):

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 personnel from an incumbent contract to the prime offeror’s contract with a minimum of degradation in service to the Government.

This transition plan will become part of any resultant contract award as an attachment.

(1) The Offeror shall address its capability to execute a phase-in/transition leading to assumption of full contractual responsibility no later than 90 days after contract award. Offerors who exhibit a fully integrated transition schedule that by labor category and location, exceed the minimum FTE requirement, and do so to a greater degree (i.e. up to the full FTE requirement) will potentially receive a more favorable evaluation. Offerors who exhibit a transition schedule that does not allow adequate time for contingencies in the transition and on-boarding process may be assigned risk. No strengths will be awarded for an offeror’s transition plan that exceeds the Government’s planned 90 day transition.

(2) The Offeror’s plan that provides a detailed approach to accomplish a timely transition by describing its ability to manage, deploy, and transition the requirement from the incumbent vendor to the successful Offeror. The Offeror’s plan to meet all requirements of the transition to include security, procedures and policies, risk mitigation techniques, flexibility, and logistics.

Details include the logistics of moving the Offeror’s personnel into both CONUS and OCONUS locations, and assuming control of the Government’s requirement for real time geospatial analysis support to USSOCOM elements. The Offeror shall address the relationship between the Transition Manager and Program Manager throughout the transition processes and the roles and responsibilities of each. A transition plan that is based upon previous successful corporate experience of similar size/scope will potentially obtain a more favorable evaluation than a transition plan submitted by an Offeror with no/limited previous corporate experience transitioning an effort of this size/magnitude.

(3) A Transition Plan that demonstrates the ability to recruit new personnel, if the Offeror is unable to capture incumbents, will potentially receive a more favorable evaluation than a transition plan that heavily relies solely on incumbent capture without demonstrating its ability to recruit new personnel.

(4) The Offeror’s plan to accomplish succession from incumbent Contractor performance (including plans, if any, to assimilate the incumbent’s workforce) to Offeror performance will be evaluated for feasibility and potential impact on mission continuity. A transition plan that is based upon previous successful corporate experience accomplishing succession of performance from a legacy contractor and assimilating incumbent employees into its operations will potentially obtain a more favorable evaluation than a transition plan submitted by an Offeror with no/limited previous corporate experience.

(5) A Transition Plan that demonstrates and describes the Offeror’s ability to assimilate and begin the Imagery Analyst Extended Familiarization Training Course within 15 days of award will potentially receive a more favorable evaluation than a transition plan that takes longer to assimilate the training course. Inherent in the training course is an offeror provided facility sufficient to meet the objectives of the course as discussed in SOW 9.4.

(6) The Key Personnel required and submitted within Volume 4 will be evaluated within Factor 2 (Transition Plan) to the extent in which the resumes submitted for the Key Personnel in SOFARS 5652.237-9001 demonstrate that they do not meet, meet or exceed the minimum qualifications, certifications, education, years of experience, and support within SOF Communities, Conventional Forces, or Commercial Industry as specified in the requisite SOW paragraphs.

Letters of Commitment with at least 12 months of commitment from full performance start date (post-transition) are desirable. A commitment by the Transition Manager to fulfill the entire performance period for this position as stated in SOW 4.2.13 is desirable. Key Personnel resumes will be reviewed across all five aspects in the matrices provided in L.4.2.2 and given an overall similarity rating. In a cascading effect, resumes deemed “Very Similar” will be evaluated higher than resumes that are “Similar”, “Somewhat Similar” and “Not Similar” to the SOW requirements and Similarity Rating Matrices.

(7) The Total Compensation Plan required and submitted within Volume 5 will be evaluated within Factor 2 (Transition Plan) to the extent the plan reflects a sound management approach and understanding of the contract requirements. This evaluation will include a risk assessment of the offeror's ability to provide uninterrupted high-quality work. The professional compensation proposed will be considered in terms of its impact upon recruiting and retention, its realism, and its consistency with a total plan for compensation. This risk assessment will be a component of the overall Government’s factor risk evaluation.

M.4 Factor 3 Corporate Experience and Management (Volume 3):

Under this Factor, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s demonstrated corporate experience in providing similar services, and the extent to which the Offeror’s Management structure demonstrates clearly defined responsibilities and sound business management practices and processes to meet the organizations requirements as defined in Section L.4.1. The Government will further evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s corporate experience in implementing management plans of similar size and scope, informs their understanding of how the required personnel support the mission and enhances risk mitigation strategies to successfully execute contract performance. Under Factor 3, the Government will evaluate:

(1) Whether the Offeror’s Management Plan demonstrates verifiable and successful experience in providing geospatial analytic support services of a similar size and scope. Plans that incorporate demonstrated, successful, and direct corporate experience in staffing Geospatial Analyst projects of a similar size and scope across the personnel category descriptions in Attachment J-1, SOW Section 4.2 will receive a more-favorable rating. Offerors with current experience, over longer periods of performance will potentially be more favorably evaluated.

(2) Whether the Offeror’s Management Plan demonstrates verifiable and successful experience in providing geospatial analytic support services as a Prime managing subcontractor(s). Plans that incorporate demonstrated previous successful corporate experience performing as a Prime managing subcontractor(s) in support of Geospatial Analysis projects of a similar size and scope will receive a more-favorable rating. Offerors with current experience, over longer periods of performance will potentially be more favorably evaluated. Whether the subcontractor management approach is efficient and modular/flat. A plan that demonstrates a higher confidence of achieving this will receive a more favorable evaluation.

(3) Whether the Offeror’s Management Plan demonstrates verifiable and successful previous corporate experience in hiring, recruiting, retaining, and marketing for Geospatial Analysts in support of similar-sized Government requirements. Plans that incorporate demonstrated, successful, and direct previous corporate experience in effective recruitment and retention of Geospatial Analysts, with TS/SCI clearances, for projects of a similar size and scope will receive a more-favorable rating. Offerors with current experience, over longer periods of performance will potentially be more favorably evaluated.

(4) The extent to which the Offeror has actual verifiable experience, infrastructure, and established procedures to prepare and manage OCONUS deployments, i.e. insert, withdraw and support/manage CONUS and OCONUS deployed employees (to include the possession of local business licenses, specifically but not limited to Afghanistan). Due to the complexity of the deployable portion of this requirement, preference will be given to offerors who have experience operating in a Declared Theater of Active Armed Conflict.

(5) Whether the management plan demonstrates the ability of the prime contractor to rapidly expand operations to support the magnitude and complexities of this effort.

(6) Whether the management plan demonstrates the process for training new personnel, to include the Imagery Analyst Extended Familiarization Training Course.

(7) Whether the Offeror’s Management Plan demonstrates verifiable and successful experience in minimizing the washout rate of new personnel and maintaining a high fill rate.

(8) The capability of the Offeror’s proposed procedures to minimize impact on continuity of operations due to turnover (e.g., termination, sickness, retirement). How the Total Compensation Plan (Volume 5) will detract or enhance the offeror’s ability to minimize turnover and recruit new personnel will be considered.

(9) The Mission-Essential Contractor Services Plan will be assessed to determine the offeror ability to continue services despite negative impacts from both natural (e.g., weather) and geopolitical (e.g. travel restrictions, terrorist threats or attacks) events.

(10) The Key Personnel required and submitted within Volume 4 will be evaluated within Factor 3 (Corporate Experience and Management) to the extent in which the resumes submitted for the Key Personnel in SOFARS 5652.237-9001 demonstrate that they do not meet, meet or exceed the minimum qualifications, certifications, education, years of experience, and support within SOF Communities, Conventional Forces, or Commercial Industry as specified in the requisite SOW paragraphs. Letters of Commitment with at least 12 months of commitment from full performance start date (post-transition) are desirable. Key Personnel resumes will be reviewed across all five aspects in the matrices provided in L.4.2.2 and given an overall similarity rating.

In a cascading effect, resumes deemed “Very Similar” will be evaluated higher than resumes that are “Similar”, “Somewhat Similar” and “Not Similar” to the SOW requirements and Similarity Rating Matrices.

(11) The Total Compensation Plan required and submitted within Volume 5 will be evaluated within Factor 3 (Corporate Experience and Management) to the extent the plan reflects a sound management approach and understanding of the contract requirements. This evaluation will include a risk assessment of the offeror's ability to provide uninterrupted high-quality work. The professional compensation proposed will be considered in terms of its impact upon recruiting and retention, its realism, and its consistency with a total plan for compensation. This risk assessment will be a component of the overall Government’s factor risk evaluation.

M.5 Key Personnel (Volume 4):

The Government will evaluate this volume under Factor 2 Transition Plan and Factor 3 Corporate Experience and Management.

M.6 Total Compensation Plan (Volume 5):

The Government will evaluate this Volume under Factor 2 Transition Plan and/or Factor 3 Corporate Experience and Management, and Factor 5 Price.

M.7 Factor 5 Price Evaluation (Volume 6):

Price will be evaluated in order to determine that it is fair and reasonable per FAR 15.404, to include ensuring the price is not unrealistically low or unreasonably high. Price proposal evaluations will consider the eight year and nine month requirement (to include the transition period and FAR 52.217-8 Option) defined in CLINs X001, X002, X003, X004, X005, X006, and 800X to form an overall Total Evaluated Price (TEP). Price will not receive a color rating or score.

M.7.1 Total Evaluated Price:

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s total evaluated price and use that as the Factor 5 input for the source selection decision.

The TEP will be calculated as the sum of all CLINs including all Options, as laid out in the Pricing Matrix, Attachment J-7

• CONUS Labor Hour CLINs X001 (Fixed Price Labor Hour) will be computed by multiplying the proposed fully-burdened labor hour rates by the number of hours listed in the Pricing Matrix, Attachment J-7. See L.6.2.1 for additional information.

• OCONUS Labor Hour CLINs X002 (Fixed Price Labor Hour) will be computed by multiplying the proposed fully-burdened labor hour rates by the number of hours listed in the Pricing Matrix, Attachment J-7. See L.6.2.2 for additional information.

• Travel CLINs X003 (Cost Reimbursement Only) will be based on the Government Estimates listed in the Pricing Matrix, Attachment J-7, plus corresponding indirect rate. See L.6.3.1 Travel and L.6.7 Indirect Rates for additional information.

• Other Direct Costs (ODCs) CLINs X004 (Cost Reimbursement Only) Will be comprised of multiple components discussed individually below. See L.6.3.2 for additional information.

1. ODC Component: Defense Base Act Insurance (DBA) will be bid based upon the Offeror’s insurance quote and the Government provided listing of deployed personnel (CLINs X002) as shown in the Pricing Matrix, Attachment J-7. As future premiums may change and are unknown, the Government will use the base year premium rate quote provided for all option years. See L.6.3.2.1 for additional instructions

2. ODC Component: Labor Uplifts will be comprised of the Government Provided Plug number. See L.6.3.2.2 for additional information.

3. ODC Component: Training/Other: Offeror proposed ODCs necessary to complete the requirement as specified in the Statement of Work and 6.3.2.3.

• Contract Data Requirements List CLINs X005 (Firm Fixed Price) will be Not Separately Priced for the life of the contract, and thus not evaluated in the TEP.

• Transition Period CLIN 0006 (Fixed Price Labor Hour) will be computed by multiplying the proposed fully-burdened labor hour rates by the number of hours listed in the Pricing Matrix, Attachment J-7. See L.6.5 for additional information.

• 52.217-8 Option CLIN 800X (Fixed Price Labor Hour) will be will be computed by multiplying the proposed fully-burdened labor hour rates by the number of hours listed in the Pricing Matrix, Attachment J-7. See L.6.6 for additional information.

• All indirect rates proposed will be evaluated for reasonableness and compliance with the Offeror’s proposed accounting practices. See L.6.7. Indirect Rates for additional information.

M.7.2 Other Pricing Considerations:

Any inconsistencies between the Transition Plan/Corporate Experience and Management/Oral Presentation Proposal and the Price Proposal, such as unbalanced pricing, or other pricing anomalies may be assessed as proposal risk under that respective factor or as a Price concern regarding increased risk of additional Government Price during contract execution. The assessment of the Price proposal will include consideration of reasonableness and completeness:

(1) Reasonableness. All proposed prices will be evaluated for reasonableness per FAR 15.305 using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404. The Government will evaluate the reasonableness of the Offeror’s proposed Costs/Prices in accordance with the definitions in FAR 31.201-3. A price is considered reasonable if it does not exceed what would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business.

(2) Realism. Proposals will be evaluated for price realism. The total compensation plan should clearly show that proposed rates comply with FAR 52.222-46. In order to verify compliance with FAR 52.222-46, the Government will map proposed professional labor categories to an industry and/or government benchmark such as: government civilian rates, similar contract labor rates, www.salary.com, other similar or relevant websites, or anything else it deems appropriate or beneficial in its evaluation of price realism for the proposal submitted for this effort. For the purposes of the evaluation called out by this FAR provision, the Government will only make an evaluation of whether an awardee understands the contract requirements, and has proposed a compensation plan appropriate for those requirements--in effect, a price realism evaluation regarding an offeror’s proposed compensation. This analysis will assess if an Offeror’s Total Compensation for each individual employee/labor category is realistic for the work called out in the solicitation; the analysis will not assess realism for an individual compensation component (salary, fringe, or sub elements thereof); rather a holistic look at the offeror’s total compensation package will be accomplished and risk assigned.

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposed compensation levels reflect a clear understanding of work to be performed and demonstrate the capability to obtain and keep suitably qualified personnel to meet mission objectives. Proposals will be evaluated on the Offeror’s ability to maintain program continuity, uninterrupted high-quality work, availability of required competent professional service employees, and the offeror’s ability to successfully execute contract requirements and meet fill rates.

Furthermore, the minimum annual salaries and fringe benefits (Attachment J-5, Pay and Benefits Workbook) will be compared to the fully burdened labor hour rate proposed in Attachment J-7 Pricing Matrix to determine whether the amounts reasonably align.

(3) Completeness. The Government will determine if the Offeror’s Price proposal is an accurate reflection of all aspects of the technical proposal; and will determine compliance with the price preparations instructions in the RFP section L.6.

M.8 Factor 4 Oral Presentations:

For Offerors that are determined to be within the final competitive range, the Government will request oral presentations during discussions. The format for the oral presentation is outlined in Section L.7 and will consist of a scenario provided by the Government. All Offerors will be evaluated against the same scenario(s). During the Oral Presentation, the Offeror’s Key Personnel shall present a course(s) of action that illustrates the Offeror’s processes and procedures to manage unexpected events or rapidly changing requirements. The Government will evaluate favorably an Oral Presentation that:

(1) Demonstrates a clear understanding of the problem by determining specified and implied tasks, facts and assumptions, constraints and limitations, and assessing staffing shortfalls and opportunities.

(2) Demonstrates how to apply Change Management/Recruiting Processes that include, the development and implementation of a change-management strategy, a recruitment plan detailing access to recruiting agencies or corporate allies, a retention plan that includes corporate incentives, and a Rapid On-boarding plan that internally accelerates on-boarding practices.

(3) Demonstrates a Management Approach to move personnel efficiently in response to the scenario presented.

(4) Demonstrates key dates and milestones, with associated challenges.

(End of Section M)