Attach 0003 - Section M 27NOV24.pdf

Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award

M.1. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD: This acquisition will use formal source selection processes and techniques IAW FAR 15.1; Department of Defense Source Selection Procedures, dated August 20, 2022; and the Army Source Selection Supplement to the Department of Defense Source Selection Procedures, dated October 1, 2024. The Government will compare the Offeror’s proposal to Section L in order to perform a compliance review. Any Offeror’s proposal determined non-compliant per the terms noted in Section L will not be evaluated and will not be further considered for award. Award will be made using a Best Value Continuum Subjective Tradeoff Process as described herein. Prior to the evaluation of the factors listed below, the Government will evaluate the acceptability of the Offeror's Facility Clearance. Once determinations are made regarding the acceptability of the Offerors' Facility Clearances, the following evaluation factors will be used to determine award:

Technical, Past Performance, and Cost. ACC-RI will make an award to the responsible contractor whose offer conforms to the solicitation and is determined to provide the best value to the Government considering price and non-price factors. This may result in an award to other than the lowest priced or highest rated Offeror.

M.2. NUMBER OF CONTRACT AWARDS. ACC-RI intends to award a single CPFF contract with some non-fee bearing Cost Reimbursable CLINs. The Government reserves the right to reject any or all proposals and make no award if such action is in the best interest of the Government.

M.3. COMPETITIVE RANGE & DISCUSSIONS. IAW FAR 15.306(c)(2), after evaluation of all proposals, the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) may make a competitive range determination for purposes of efficiency as set forth in Section L. As referenced in Section L.7.1., the solicitation will tell offerors to note the provision at FAR 52.215-1, Instructions to Offerors – Competitive Acquisition; and that the Government intends to award a contract resulting from this RFP without discussions with offerors, except for clarifications described in FAR 15.306(a); therefore, offerors’ initial proposal should contain their best terms. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary by the PCO. The Government reserves the right to:

limit the competitive range for the purposes of efficiency; award without discussions;

make an award to other than the low Offeror; and make no award should no Offeror prove to submit an acceptable offer based on the criteria set forth in this solicitation. The Government will not open discussions for the sole purpose of allowing Offerors to add detail to proposals.

M.4. PROOF OF FACILITY CLEARANCE, AFFIRMATIVE STATEMENT AS TO

KUWAIT LABOR LAW COMPLIANCE, AND SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENTS.

M.4.1. Facility Clearance. The PCO will verify that the Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) code(s) for the Offeror and the teammates / subcontractors/ managing partner, provided in Volume I, Supplemental Documents & Facility Clearance, possess a SECRET Facility Clearance via the Defense Security Service (DSS) Industrial Security Facilities Database (ISFD) by the

Request for Proposal (RFP) closing date. If the CAGE code for the Offeror, managing partner, teammate or subcontractor provided does not possess a Secret Facility Clearance, the Offeror will be found unacceptable. Unacceptable proposals will not be further evaluated and will not be further considered for award.

The Offeror will be rated IAW the following definitions:

Acceptable: Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable: Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

M.4.2. Affirmative Statement as to Kuwait Labor Law Compliance. The PCO will verify that the Offeror has included an affirmative statement that it understands and will fully comply with Kuwait labor law. If the Offeror fails to provide an affirmative statement as to Kuwait labor law compliance, the Offeror will be considered unacceptable and will not be further considered for award. The Offeror will be rated IAW the following definitions:

Acceptable: Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable: Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

M.4.3. The Government will review the completed solicitation and amendments for accurate completion and applicable signatures.

M.4.4. The Executive Summary will not be evaluated. Rather, it will be reviewed to assist evaluators in familiarizing themselves with the approach each Offeror will use to meet the requirements of the Performance Work Statement (PWS).

M.5. EVALUATION FACTORS. For those Offerors with an Acceptable Facility Clearance and Acceptable Affirmative Statement as to Kuwait Labor Law Compliance, the U.S. Government will evaluate the following factors and subfactors:

Factor 1: Technical Subfactor 1: Technical Approach Subfactor 2: Staffing Plan & Key Personnel Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Cost/Price

M.6. RELATIVE IMPORTANCE. For the Offerors with an Acceptable Facility Clearance, the Government assigns the following order of importance:

M.6.1. Technical sub-factors and technical factor will be rated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis and the proposal must be rated acceptable for all technical sub-factors in order to receive an acceptable rating for the technical factor. The past performance factor will be adjectivally rated via a Performance Confidence assessment. Past performance is more important than Price. However, as non-price factors equalize, price becomes more important in the best value analysis. Clarifications and discussions with Offerors may occur during the evaluation process.

M.7. EVALUATION APPROACH. All proposals shall be subject to evaluation by the Source Selection Team (SST). The overarching evaluation approach for all factors is as follows:

1. Adequacy of Response: The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the Offeror’s methods and approach have adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirements specified in the RFP.

2. Feasibility of Approach: The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the proposed approach is workable and the end results achievable. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which successful performance is contingent upon proven devices and techniques.

The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the Offeror is expected to be able to successfully complete the proposed tasks and technical requirements within the required schedule.

M.8. EVALUATION APPROACH. IAW the DoD Source Selection Procedures dated 20 August 2023, Section D.8.2.2, the technical factors/sub-factors are evaluated on an objective, acceptable/unacceptable basis, (see below).

M.9. FACTOR I - TECHNICAL.

The Offeror’s technical proposal will be evaluated on the acceptability of the Offeror to clearly demonstrate the following:

M.9.1. Subfactor 1 – Technical Approach.

Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method

Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable

Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

M.9.1.1. The Offeror’s approach to and understanding of the transition plan in accordance with Sections 3.15, 3.16, and 3.17 of the PWS. The transition plan clearly demonstrates the plan for transitioning in/out within 90 days and meet the requirements of the PWS.

M.9.1.2. The Offeror’s ability to perform safely as detailed in its safety plan.

M.9.1.3. The Offeror’s approach to and understanding of the SAAS system and its procedures for reconciling ammunition documents.

M.9.1.4. The Offeror’s approach to and understanding of the training requirements as described in Section 2.4 of the PWS.

M.9.1.5. The Offeror’s approach to and understanding of the Quality Control Program as well as its understanding and cognizance of the Army Ammunition Audit programs.

The Government will conduct its analysis by evaluating the information submitted by the Offeror in response to L.7.1.

M.9.2. Subfactor 2 – Staffing Plan & Key Personnel.

M.9.2.1. The Government will evaluate the offerors staffing plan for its methodology for recruiting, hiring, and retaining personnel with the education, knowledge, skills, and experience necessary to execute the PWS requirements, to include all the Key Personnel in Section 2.3 of the PWS. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s organizational approach is relevant, clear, comprehensive, effective, and adequately detailed and the extent to which it demonstrates clear lines of communication and timely accomplishment of tasks and deliverables, and resolution of discrepancies and identified risks. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s staffing plan to determine the degree to which the Offeror demonstrates an understanding of the processes, capabilities, and experience it will employ to ensure successful performance.

M.9.2.2. The Government will evaluate the resumes for each of the Key Personnel positions to ensure they meet the qualifications identified in Section 2.3 of the PWS.

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s proposal contains firm commitments for positions identified as “Key Personnel” in the PWS. Criteria includes reviewing resumes provided in the Offeror’s proposal to verify they indicate an acceptable level of skill and experience for the positions and reviewing letter of commitment to verify they include the proposed hire’s intent to join offeror’s team on a specific date. It is acceptable for the letters of commitment to state that employment is contingent upon contract award to the applicable offeror.

The Government will conduct its analysis by evaluating the information submitted by the Offeror in response to L.7.2.

M.10. FACTOR II - PAST PERFORMANCE.

The Government will utilize the Performance Confidence Assessment (see below) to select the most appropriate confidence level for each Offeror. Ensure the rational for the conclusions reached are included.

Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Definition Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence 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. The Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the facto of past performance.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

The past performance evaluation is an assessment of the Offeror’s probability of meeting the minimum past performance solicitation requirements. This assessment will be based on the Offeror’s record of relevant and recent past performance information that pertain to the products and/or services outlined in the solicitation requirements.

Past Performance will be evaluated IAW FAR 15.305 and Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) 215.305.

Past performance will be initially evaluated to determine whether the Offeror’s present/past performance is recent, and relevant or not relevant to the effort to be acquired. Second, the past performance evaluation will determine how well the Offeror performed on the prior contracts.

Note: In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or “neutral) past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered “neutral confidence”.

M.10.1. RECENT contracts are defined as follows (not a separate rating):

- Were awarded or commenced within three years prior to the closing date of this solicitation; or

- Were awarded or commenced prior to three years, but a contract period of performance (i.e., providing services pursuant to the contract’s performance work statement) remained on-going as of the closing date of this solicitation.

M.10.2. RELEVANCY is not separately rated. When determining relevancy, the USG will review the following for similarity with ASP/TSA: type of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontracting/teaming. The following definitions will be used to determine relevancy of past performance information:

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings Rating Definition Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

M.10.3. Following the recency and relevancy determination, the quality and how well the contractor performed on the contracts will be assessed. Documented results from the following sources form the support and basis for this assessment:

- Past performance information provided by the Offeror, as solicited.

- Past performance questionnaires (‘List of Attachments’ section of the Solicitation, Attachment 00XX).

- Past performance information may be obtained from established systems such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System, Federal Awardee

Performance and Integrity Information System, Electronic Subcontract Reporting System, or other databases.

- Past performance information may also be obtained from other sources available to the USG, such as the Defense Contract Management Agency; and interviews with Program Managers, PCOs, Fee Determining Officials, etc.

The USG may consider a wide array of information from a variety of sources but is not compelled to rely on all the information available. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s record of past and current performance to ascertain the probability of successfully performing the required efforts of the PWS.

The USG will focus its inquiries on the Offeror’s (and major subcontractor’s) record of performance as it relates to all solicitation requirements, including price, schedule, performance, and management of subcontractors. Major subcontractors are defined as members of an Offeror’s overall team who are expected to perform 10 percent or more of the proposed effort. Labor brokers are not considered major subcontractors. A significant achievement, problem, or lack of relevant data in any element of the work can become an important consideration in the evaluation process. Therefore, the Offeror is reminded to include its most recent and relevant efforts (within the past three years) in its proposal.

M.11. FACTOR III – COST/PRICE. Cost will be an evaluated factor; however, it will not be adjectively scored. The Cost Proposals will be evaluated based on cost realism IAW FAR 15.404(1). Proposal Analysis Techniques. The basis of award will be based on Best Value Tradeoff cost for the 90-day transition/mobilization period, base performance period, four one-year option periods, and a six-month extension IAW 52.217-8.

M.11.1. The Government will follow the consolidated table for labor categories back to the Technical Volume. Additionally, the U.S. Government will verify the calculations for the full-time equivalents (FTEs) and the associated pricing.

M.11.2. Evaluation of Option to Extend Services. As part of the price evaluation, the Government will evaluate the Extension of Services Clause, FAR 52.217-8, by adding 50% of the fourth option year total price to the Offeror’s total price.

Thus, the Offeror’s total price for the purpose of evaluation will include the total prices for the: 90 Day transition in, 12-month base year, option years one through four, plus an amount equal to 50 percent of the option year four price. Offerors are only required to price the base year and option years one through four. The Government reserves the right not to exercise any option year inclusive of the option to extend services.

M.11.2.1. The Government reserves the right to reject proposals that are unreasonably low or high in price.

M.11.3. Unbalanced Pricing. As part of the cost evaluation, proposals may be reviewed to identify any Unbalanced Pricing. IAW FAR 15.404-1(g), Unbalanced Pricing, a proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. Proposals may also be evaluated for affordability to the Government.

M.11.4. Sources. The method of evaluation noted above may include the use of information from sources such as, but not limited to, the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) and the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA).

M.11.5. Cost/Price Factor.

M.11.5.1. The total evaluated price will be the total of the Offeror's submitted cost/price proposal plus any Government identified probable cost adjustments as determined IAW FAR 15.404-1(d) Cost Realism Analysis. Cost/Price proposals will not be assigned an adjectival rating. The proposals will be evaluated for cost realism and reasonableness IAW FAR 15.404-1, Proposal Analysis Techniques.

M.11.5.2. Cost Realism Analysis.

M.11.5.2.1. Cost Realism is the process of independently reviewing and evaluating specific elements of the Offeror's proposed cost elements to determine the following: whether the estimated proposed cost elements are realistic and feasible for the work to be performed; whether the proposed cost elements reflect a clear understanding of the requirements; and whether the proposed cost elements are consistent with the unique methods of performance described in the Technical Proposal. Cost realism analysis shall be performed on cost reimbursement contracts to determine the probable cost of performance for each Offeror. The probable cost may differ from the proposed cost and should reflect the Government's best estimate of the cost of any contract that is likely to result from the Offeror's proposal.

M.11.5.2.2 The Government will evaluate proposals for Cost Realism. Offerors are cautioned that the Government has concerns with the potential for post-award performance problems if Offerors propose unrealistically low costs.

Therefore, the Government reserves the option of rejecting a proposal if, in the exercise of its judgement, it determines that an Offeror’s cost proposal is unrealistically low, regardless of technical merit and/or evaluated costs. The magnitude of any necessary and appropriate most probable cost (MPC) adjustments may be taken into consideration. For example, if as a result of the Cost Realism analysis it becomes clear to the Government that any necessary upward MPC adjustments are so substantial that they present an unacceptable risk (notwithstanding an assessed rating of acceptable under the technical factor), the proposal may be rejected and not further considered for award.

Therefore, failure of the Offeror to establish the credibility of its proposed costs may result in a MPC adjustment being made to the costs proposed, and/or the proposal being rejected as unrealistically low and not further considered for award.

The Government will conduct its analysis by evaluating the information submitted by the Offeror in response to L.9.