Attachment_0003_GEN VI RMAS Evaluation Criteria.pdf

B. EVALUATION CRITERIA (Section M)

M.1 BASIS FOR AWARD:

The Government intends to make multiple awards IAW FAR 16.504-3. Award(s) will be made to all proposals that are deemed responsive, acceptable and qualifying IAW RFO FAR 15.104(b)(1)(ii)(A) and the instructions contained within this RFP. For purposes of this solicitation, a qualifying Offeror is an Offeror that meets all stated technical, past performance, and other material solicitation requirements. The Government will consider the following evaluation factors: Technical and Past Performance. Technical and Past Performance will be evaluated as acceptability factors. The Government will evaluate the Technical Factor first, and only Offerors assigned a final Acceptable rating under the Technical Factor will be evaluated under the Past Performance Factor.

Consistent with the multiple-award qualifying-Offeror approach, the Government will not evaluate price or cost for award of the base IDIQ contracts. Price or cost will be considered for Task Order award IAW the Task Order Fair Opportunity Procedures established under this Contract.

The Government will conduct an integrated assessment of each proposal to determine whether the Offeror is eligible for award. To be eligible for award, an Offerors must receive an Acceptable rating under the Technical Factor and an Acceptable rating under the Past Performance Factor. An Offeror that does not meet all applicable eligibility requirements will be ineligible for award.

The Government intends to award the base IDIQ contracts without negotiations, except for clarification as described in RFO FAR 15.202(a)(2), and RFO FAR 52.215-1.

Therefore, initial proposals should contain the Offeror’s best proposal. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct clarifications or communications, as permitted by applicable regulations, to address matters identified by the Government. The Government further reserves the right to conduct discussions or negotiations, as permitted by applicable regulations, and to permit Offerors to revise their proposals when discussions or negotiations are conducted.

The Government reserves the right to make staggered awards based on evaluation results and award decisions. Awards may be issued at different times. Offerors determined eligible for award may receive award without negotiations. Offerors that do not meet the stated eligibility requirements, including Offerors assigned a final Unacceptable rating under the Technical Factor of final Unacceptable rating under the Past Performance Factor, will be ineligible for award.

All awarded contracts under the RMAS suite will share the same IDIQ base-period end date, and the option period will remain consistent for all awardees within the RMAS suite. Each contract’s ordering period will begin on its date of award and end on the common IDIQ base-period end date.

M.2 FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS TO BE EVALUATED:

Careful, full, and impartial consideration will be given to all proposals received pursuant to the RFP. A team of Government personnel will evaluate each proposal against the following Factors and Subfactors stated below. Technical and Past Performance will be evaluated as acceptability factors. The Government will evaluate the Technical Factor first, and only Offerors assigned a final Acceptable rating under the Technical Factor will be evaluated under the Past Performance Factor.

To be eligible for award, an Offeror must receive a final Acceptable rating under the Technical Factor and an Acceptable rating under the Past Performance Factor and meet all other material solicitation requirements. Offerors that do not meet all applicable eligibility requirements will be ineligible for award.

M.2.1 Factor 1: Technical: The Technical Factor is further divided into the following two (2) Subfactors:

(1) Subfactor 1 – Corporate Experience

(2) Subfactor 2 – Management and Staffing Approach

The Corporate Experience Subfactor is significantly more important than the Management and Staffing Approach Subfactor.

M.2.2 Factor 2 – Past Performance: The Government will evaluate the recent and relevant past performance of the prime Offeror and proposed Major Subcontractors reflected in the QCs designated by the Offeror for Past Performance evaluation and any required additional Major Subcontractor Past Performance references, to determine whether the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the requirements of this solicitation.

The Past Performance evaluation will be based on the three (3) Qualifying Contracts submitted under the Technical Factor and designated by the Offeror for Past Performance evaluation in accordance with Section L.2.1.5, and any required additional Major Subcontractor Past Performance reference submitted under that section.

The Past Performance Factor will be rated Acceptable or Unacceptable. The Past Performance Factor does not have subfactors. The detailed evaluation approach is stated in Section M.3.2.

M.3 EVALUATION APPROACH

The Government will evaluate the Technical Factor before evaluating Past Performance. An Offeror assigned an Unacceptable rating under the Technical Factor is ineligible for award and will not be further evaluated under the Past Performance Factor.

Only Offerors assigned a final Acceptable rating under the Technical Factor will be evaluated under the Past Performance Factor.

The overarching evaluation approach for the Technical Factors and Subfactors is as follows:

a. Adequacy of Response. The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the Offeror’s methods and approach adequately and completely consider, define, and satisfy the requirements specified in the RFP. The Government will evaluate whether the Offeror addresses each requirement IAW the proposal-submission instructions.

b. Feasibility of Approach. The Government will evaluate whether the proposed approach is workable and whether the proposed results are achievable. The Government will evaluate whether the Offeror is expected to successfully complete the proposed tasks and technical requirements within the required schedule.

M.3.1 FACTOR 1 – TECHNICAL FACTOR.

The Technical Factor and Subfactors will receive an Acceptable or Unacceptable rating IAW the following tables. Per Department of Defense Source Selection Procedures, Section 3.1.2.1, the Army methodology for evaluating Technical Approach and Related Risk is the Combined Technical/Risk Rating, (see Table 1 below). This methodology considers risk, in conjunction with the weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings.

The definitions of Technical Risk (Table 2) are included for further clarification but will not be evaluated as a separate rating. Technical Risk assessment of Low or Moderate correspond to an overall Technical/Risk rating of Acceptable, Technical Risk ratings of High or Unacceptable correspond to an overall Technical/Risk rating of Unacceptable.

TABLE 1 – COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

Rating Description Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high or unacceptable; and is ineligible for further evaluation under the Past Performance Factor.

TABLE 2 – Technical Risk Descriptions Risk Level Description

Low (Acceptable)

Proposal may contain a weakness/weaknesses which have low potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Normal contractor emphasis and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate (Acceptable)

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may have a moderate potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

High (Unacceptable)

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to have high potential to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will unlikely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Unacceptable (Unacceptable)

Proposal contains a deficiency or a combination of significant weaknesses that causes an unacceptable level of risk of unsuccessful performance.

If the proposal does not meet solicitation requirements and contains one or more deficiencies, and/or presents high or unacceptable risk of unsuccessful performance, the Offeror is ineligible for award and will not be evaluated under the Past Performance Factor.

The following definitions will be used in the evaluation process for the Technical Factor:

Key Definitions:

Weakness – A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See RFO FAR 15.001.

Significant Weakness – A flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See RFO FAR 15.001.

Deficiency – Any part of an offer that does not conform to a material requirement of a RFP. A material requirement is one that affects price, quantity, quality, or delivery, or that the RFP requires to be met at the time of proposal submission. See RFO

FAR 15.001.

Uncertainty – Any aspect of a non-cost/price factor proposal for which the intent of the offer is unclear (e.g. more than one way to interpret the offer or inconsistencies in the proposal indicating that there may have been an error, omission, or mistake).

M.3.1.1 Technical Factor; Subfactor 1, Corporate Experience (GO/NO-GO GATE).

For the purposes of evaluation for Subfactor 1: Corporate Experience, the Corporate Experience of the Offeror and its proposed major subcontractors (as identified in L 2.1.4.1) will be evaluated collectively as the Offeror’s team, and for this Subfactor, shall be defined as “the Offeror”.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Corporate Experience on a "GO" or "NO- GO" basis. To be determined compliant and acceptable for award, the Offeror must receive a rating of "GO" on all evaluation criteria listed below.

The Government will validate the Offeror's self-scores on the Corporate Experience Self-Scoring Matrix (Attachment 0004) by evaluating the objective evidence provided in Volume 2 Single Substantiating Documentation PDF. Technical evaluation adjustments to the self-scores will only be made in a downward direction if the substantiating documentation fails to validate the self-score. Any "Yes" claim that is unsubstantiated, vague, or cannot be validated will be evaluated as a "No," resulting in an overall NO-GO for this subfactor.

M.3.1.1.1 Volume I – Technical Factor; Subfactor 1, Corporate Experience, Evaluation Criteria and Validation Procedures

The Government will validate the following criteria IAW the standards and definitions established in Section L:

TABLE 3

Evaluation Area / Row Section M Requirement Validation Procedure

Row 1: Overall QC

Each submitted contract must meet the Qualifying Contract (QC) eligibility criteria defined in Section L.

Validate that each submitted contract meets the instrument type, recency, service type, and technical relevancy standards defined in Section L.

Row 2: QC: Recruiting and Retention

Minimum of one (1) QC demonstrating experience in "Recruiting and Retention" in accordance with Section L.

Confirm the submission of at least one (1) valid QC where the substantiated text demonstrates the required "Recruiting and Retention" experience as defined in Section L.

Row 3: Additional QCs

Identified the minimum required elective RMAS Task Categories in accordance with Section L.

Confirm the Offeror selected and identified the correct number of elective Task Categories on the matrix as required by Section L.

Row 4: Additional QC #1

Provided a minimum of one (1) QC for the first additional Task Category selected.

Verify that at least one

(1) valid QC is provided and substantiated for the first selected elective category in accordance with Section L.

Row 5: All QCs: Project Summary

Summary of Project: Each QC adequately discusses Section L requirements and identifies the customer.

Confirm that the narrative summary for every submitted QC addresses all elements and identifying details required by Section L.

Row 6: All QCs: Relevancy

Technical Relevancy Narrative: Each QC demonstrates an adequate understanding in accordance with Section L.

Verify that the technical relevancy narrative for each QC meets the depth and understanding criteria required by Section L.

Row 7: Portfolio: Locations

Portfolio must demonstrate performance across multiple distinct locations in accordance with Section L.

Verify that the complete portfolio of submitted QCs collectively demonstrates concurrent performance at the minimum number of physical locations required by Section L.

Row 8: Portfolio: Financial

Portfolio must meet the financial scale requirement in accordance with Section L.

Verify that at least one

(1) submitted QC has a total contract value of at least $1M per Period of Performance (POP), or has realized at least $1M in value within any single 12-month POP.

The Corporate Experience subfactor will be assigned one of the following ratings:

TABLE 4

Rating Definition

GO (PASS)

The Offeror answered "Yes" to all required evaluation criteria in the Corporate Experience Self-Scoring Matrix, fully completed all rows and columns without omission, met all formatting rules, and all answers were successfully validated by the USG using the pinpoint objective evidence provided in the Single Substantiating Documentation PDF in accordance with Section L.

NO-GO (FAIL)

The Offeror answered "No" to any of the required criteria, left any cell/row/column blank, modified the template structure, OR any "Yes" answer could not be validated due to missing, vague, or insufficient pinpoint evidence, OR the portfolio failed to meet any of the eligibility, scale, or capability thresholds specified in Section L.

M.3.1.2 Volume I – Technical Factor; Subfactor 2 - Management and Staffing Approach.

For the purposes of evaluation for Subfactor 2: Management and Staffing Approach, the Government will evaluate whether the prime intends to manage and staff at the IDIQ and TO level to include any oversight and utilization of any proposed major subcontractors (as defined in L.2.1.4). For the purposes of Subfactor 2, “Offeror” is defined as the prime only.

The Government will assess the adequacy and feasibility of Offeror’s Management and Staffing Approach to determine the Offeror’s ability to effectively manage and staff requirements with qualified personnel. The Government will evaluate the completeness of the proposed Management and Staffing Approach to determine if the Offeror provides clear and sufficient detail demonstrating the Offeror possesses the corporate capability to effectively manage and staff at both the HRS IDIQ Enterprise and TO level and clearly capture the required proposal content.

M.3.1.2.1 Subfactor 2, Management Approach: The Government will evaluate whether the Offeror’s management approach and quality controls are adequate, complete, and feasible. The Government will assess the Offeror’s description of their proposed management, organizational processes and procedures from an enterprise level, to include any narrative describing how the approach may differ at the TO level.

The Offeror’s Management Approach will be evaluated against the following criteria:

i. The adequacy, completeness, and feasibility of the Offeror’s methodology and approach to effectively managing multiple TOs with a geographically dispersed workforce, including OCONUS locations, to ensure standardization for the delivery of uninterrupted, high-quality services.

ii. The adequacy, completeness and feasibility of the Offeror’s quality control processes and management of performance measures, including the identification of the Offeror’s internal performance metrics and evaluation techniques. The adequacy of their invoice submission process and ability to adapt to changing requirements and circumstances, including how they plan to effectively manage changes in scope, schedule, or resources while maintaining service quality and efficiency.

iii. The adequacy, completeness, and feasibility of the Offeror’s methodology and approach for timely identification and resolution of issues. The adequacy and feasibility for continuous improvement, detailing their approach to resolving issues and how lessons learned will be implemented to enhance service delivery.

M.3.1.2.2 Subfactor 2, Staffing Approach: The Government will evaluate whether the Offeror’s staffing approach meets the administrative, organizational, and personnel resource requirements necessary to execute the RMAS PWS. The evaluation will measure compliance against the specific threshold and criteria defined below.

The Offeror’s Staffing Approach will be evaluated against the following criteria:

i. Organization Structure and Teaming: The Government will evaluate the adequacy, completeness, and feasibility of the proposed organizational structure. To be rated Acceptable, the proposal must meet the following criteria:

(a) The submitted organizational chart must identify all proposed subcontractors and joint venture partners, mapping them to specific PWS task areas.

(b) The chart must identify by name the Contract Manager, ACM and any other individuals integral to the Offeror’s organizational structure who will provide oversight or administrative support in managing any awarded TOs against the IDIQ.

(c) The narrative must detail the explicit reporting hierarchy and communications protocols between the Contract Manager, TO-level managers, and subcontractors.

ii. Key Personnel Resumes: The Government will evaluate the submitted resumes for individuals proposed for Key Personnel positions (CM and ACM) for compliance against the following:

(a) The adequacy and completeness of submitted resumes for individuals proposed for Key Personnel positions to include a clear demonstration in meeting the requirements as identified in RMAS PWS 2.11.5.2 and the RMAS Labor Category Descriptions Attachment 0005 under Section J of the solicitation.

(b) Resumes will be evaluated to verify they contain specific employment dates (month and year) to substantiate the required years of specialized experience, qualifications, and education, as they relate specifically to the duties assigned under this IDIQ contract.

(c) The Government will verify the submission of a signed letter commitment or written statement confirming the candidate’s intent of employment with the Offeror or subcontractor.

iii. Staffing Methodology: The Government will evaluate the adequacy, feasibility and completeness of the Offeror’s staffing methodology and reach back capabilities to fully address the breadth of the work in the RMAS PWS. To be Acceptable, the proposal must demonstrate:

(a) A workable and complete approach to recruiting, hiring and retaining qualified personnel, including a clear explanation of how the Offeror establishes competitive compensation rates to minimize turnover and vacancy rates.

(b) A workable methodology for planning and obtaining resources to support surge requirements, demonstrating the capability to access and obtain resources at various dispersed and hard to fill Continental United States (CONUS) and OCONUS locations.

(c) A workable approach demonstrating the ability to provide staffing flexibility and scalability to adapt to changing project requirements with short notice, ensuring that they can effectively mobilize additional resources as needed to increase personnel, backfill and minimize vacancies.

M.3.2 FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR.

Only Offerors assigned an Acceptable rating under the Technical Factor will be evaluated under the Past Performance Factor.

The Government will evaluate the past and current performance of the prime Offeror and proposed Major Subcontractors to determine whether the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will perform the requirements of this solicitation, including the requirements of the PWS. The Past Performance evaluation is separate from the responsibility determination.

M.3.2.1 Past Performance Information: The Government will evaluate past performance information submitted by the Offeror IAW Section L.2.1.5 and information obtained from other sources, including CPARS, Government records and systems, PPQs, interviews, and other sources reasonably available to the Government.

The Government is not required to contact every reference, obtain a completed PPQ for every reference, or consider all information available. The Government may, at its discretion and consistent with the source selection process and applicable regulations, consider PPQs received after the proposal submission due date, provided they are received no later than thirty (30) calendar days after the proposal submission due date.

PPQs received more than thirty (30) calendar days after the proposal submission due date will not be considered.

For a designated QC performed by a proposed Major Subcontractor under a subcontract, the Government may consider available information from the prime contractor, Government or commercial customer, PPQ responses, interviews, contract or task order records, and other reasonably available sources. The absence of a CPARS record specific to the proposed Major Subcontractor will not, by itself, be considered adverse past performance or result in an Unacceptable rating.

When a proposed Major Subcontractor did not perform under one of the QCs designated for Past Performance evaluation, the Government will evaluate the required additional Past Performance reference submitted for that Major Subcontractor. The Government will consider the relevance of the reference to the work the Major Subcontractor is proposed to perform under this solicitation.

The Government will evaluate applicable past performance concerning compliance with RFO FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns.

Evaluation of past performance shall be IAW this plan utilizing the Past Performance Questionnaire set forth in Attachment 0008.

M.3.2.2 Past Performance Evaluation Methodology: The Government will focus its evaluation on the Offeror’s and proposed Major Subcontractors’ records of performance as they relate to all solicitation requirements, including schedule, performance, and management of subcontractors. For the purpose of this Factor Evaluation, a Major Subcontractor is defined in Section L.2.1.4.1. A significant achievement, problem, or lack of relevant data in any element of the work can become an important consideration in the evaluation process.

The Government will evaluate each Offeror independently to determine whether its past performance record is Acceptable or Unacceptable. The Government will not conduct a comparative assessment or trade-off analysis among Offerors.

Performance under North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 541612 may be relevant but is not, by itself, determinative of relevance.

The past performance factor considers each Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract requirements. There are three (3) aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy and quality.

i. Recency: The first aspect is to evaluate the recency of the Offeror’s past performance.

For this solicitation, recent performance is defined as performance that is ongoing or was performed within the five (5) years preceding the date of issuance of this solicitation.

ii. Relevance: The second aspect is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the Offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. Relevancy is not separately rated;

however, the following criteria (see Table 3) will be used to establish what is relevant. Efforts performed under NAICS code 541612 alone does not establish relevance.

Table 5 - Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Very Relevant Present or past performance effort involved essentially the same scope, magnitude, and complexity this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present or past performance effort involved similar scope, magnitude, and complexity this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Present or past performance effort involved some of the scope, magnitude, and complexity this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present or past performance effort involved little or none of the scope, magnitude, and complexity this solicitation requires; or the data is not recent.

iii. Quality Assessment: The third aspect assesses the overall quality of the Offeror’s past performance. Documented results from past performance questionnaires, interviews, CPARS, and other sources form the support and basis for this assessment.

In assigning the overall Past Performance rating, the Government will consider the recency and relevance of the effort; quality of performance; source and context of the information; severity, frequency, and trend of any performance issues; the effectiveness of corrective actions; and the extent to which a proposed Major Subcontractor is proposed to perform a major or critical aspect of the requirement. No single reference, CPARS rating, performance issue, or adverse report will necessarily determine the overall Past Performance rating.

When negative small business participation information exists, the Government will consider the context of the information and the effectiveness of corrective actions in determining whether the Government has a reasonable expectation of successful performance.

Past Performance Rating: Each Offeror will be assigned one (1) of the ratings identified below:

TABLE 6 - PAST PERFORMANCE ACCEPTABLE/UNACCEPTABLE RATINGS

Acceptable

Based on the Offeror’s past performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort. An Offeror with no recent and relevant past performance record, or whose record is so sparse that no meaningful past performance assessment can be made, will be considered to have unknown or neutral past performance and will receive an Acceptable rating. The Offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably because of its lack of relevant past performance.

Unacceptable

Based on the Offeror’s past performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort. An Unacceptable rating may be assigned when documented, recent, relevant, and material adverse past performance information is of such severity, frequency, or consistency that it demonstrates an unacceptable risk of unsuccessful performance.

The following definitions will be used in the evaluation process for the Past Performance Factor:

Key Definitions:

Adverse Past Performance – Past Performance information that supports an Unacceptable rating based on data obtained from the Offeror, CPARS, other Government systems and files, past performance questionnaires, interviews, or other reasonably available sources. Adverse Past Performance may include adverse CPARS ratings, cure notices, show-cause letters, terminations, recurring schedule or technical performance problems, ineffective corrective actions, or other documented performance issues.

M.4 NEGOTIATIONS

1. GENERAL INFORMATION. IAW RFO FAR 15.204-2, negotiation sessions may be conducted with Offerors included in the applicable competitive range if the Government determines negotiations are necessary. The Government intends to award contracts without negotiations, except for clarifications as described in RFO FAR 15.202(a)(2) and as provided in RFO FAR 52.215-1. Clarifications and communications may be conducted, as permitted by applicable regulations, to address matters identified by the Government; however, clarifications and communications will not permit Offerors to revise their proposals.

2. DISCUSSION SCHEDULING. If the Government determines that discussions or negotiations are necessary, the Government may establish a competitive range IAW RFO FAR 15.204-1. The KO will provide additional instructions to Offerors included in the applicable competitive range. Offerors included in the applicable competitive range will be allowed a minimum of three calendar days to submit proposal revisions.

M.5 DETERMINATION OF RESPONSIBILITY

1. As an element of determining the responsibility of Offerors who are small businesses, a Certificate of Competency may be required by the KO in accordance with RFO FAR 19.204.

M.6 USE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (AI) TOOLS IN PROPOSAL EVALUATION

M.6.1. Use of AI Tools in Support of Evaluations: The Government reserves the right to employ AI tools/ platforms to assist in the analysis and review of offeror proposals. AI tools may be used to support tasks such as summarizing proposal content, identifying potential compliance issues related to request for task order proposal / solicitation requirements, highlighting areas of potential strength, weakness, or risk, and organizing proposal data for evaluator review.

M.6.2. Maintaining Inherently Governmental Functions: Notwithstanding the use of AI tools/platforms to support the evaluation process, AI is used as a tool to support decision-makers and will not be used to make evaluative judgments or selections, or to replace the independent assessments of Government personnel. All final evaluation judgments, including the assignment or assessment of final acceptable/unacceptable ratings, determinations regarding an Offeror’s status as a qualifying Offeror and eligibility for award, and source selection decisions, will be made exclusively by Government personnel. The Government personnel remain exclusively responsible for the accuracy, integrity, and final approval of all acquisition actions.

M.6.3. Offeror Confidentiality and Data Protection: The AI tools utilized by the Government will be employed in a manner consistent with applicable regulations that govern the protection of proprietary and source selection sensitive information. Any AI platform or tool used by the Government adheres to the requirements of the Department of War (DoW) cybersecurity framework at Impact Level 5 (IL5) or higher to safeguard contractor bid, proposal, and proprietary data. The use of contractor data for training external or commercial AI models is prohibited. No proposal data will be transmitted to or processed by external, non-Government systems without appropriate safeguards and authorizations in place.