Attachment 0003 GPS Section M.pdf

Controlled – Collaboration/Controlled Unclassified Information – Secured Procurement Sensitive

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

GLOBAL PROTECTIVE SERVICES (GPS) MULTIPLE-AWARD INDEFINITE-DELIVERY

INDEFINITE-QUANTITY (MA-IDIQ)

ARMY CONTRACTING COMMAND – ROCK ISLAND (ACC-RI)

FINAL V2. 12 NOV 2024

W519TC-24-R-0011– SECTION M

BASIS FOR AWARD – (Solicitation Attachment 0003 – Section M)

M-1. Basis for Award

This is a best value source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition

Regulation (FAR) 15.3 and DoD Source Selection Procedures, as supplemented. In this procurement, the Government will determine best value based on an objective assessment and validation of the Highest Technically Rated Offerors (HTRO). Price will not be evaluated during this source selection (FAR 15.304(c)(1)(ii)(A)), therefore tradeoffs will not be used. Price will be evaluated at the individual task order level.

M-1.1.1 Number of Contracts to be Awarded. The Government intends to award one contract to each and all qualifying Offerors (FAR 15.304(c)(1)(ii)(A)), who are also determined responsible IAW FAR Part 9. Qualifying Offerors must have a Minimum

Technical Threshold Rating (MTTR) of at least 57,600 points (80% of the maximum score).

M-1.1.2 IDIQ Ceiling. The overall ceiling of the IDIQ is $10,330,446,190.46 for ten years.

The total value of all task orders awarded under the IDIQ will not exceed this amount.

Funding will be determined at the individual task order level.

M-1.1.3 Minimum Quantity Task Order. An initial task order will be awarded to each IDIQ contractor for initial CDRL Submission as outlined in Attachment 0007 CRDL Matrix. The dollar value is set at $1,000.00 and will satisfy the minimum quantity requirement. There is no guarantee of any task order beyond the minimum task order.

M-1.2 Proposal Compliance and Offeror Responsibility

M-1.2.1 Proposal Substantiation. Unsubstantiated or misleading claims for any Prior

Technical Experience evaluation element could result in the Government determining that the Offeror’s proposed self-rated score is artificially inflated. If this were to occur, the

Government will unilaterally downward adjust the Offeror’s score, potentially down to zero points.

M-1.2.2 Proposal Compliance. Offerors shall meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, submission requirements, representations and certifications, and other instructions identified within the solicitation. Offerors shall comply with content required within each of the proposal sections. Failure to comply with any requirement of the solicitation may result in the Government determining the Offeror to be inacceptable and ineligible for award.

The Government will review each Offeror’s proposal documentation to ensure all required documentation was provided in response to the solicitation. The Government will rely on the documentation provided by the Offeror to facilitate the Contracting Officer’s determination of proposal compliance.

M-1.2.3 Offeror Responsibility. No award shall be made to an Offeror unless the

Contracting Officer determines the Offeror to be responsible. To be determined responsible, an Offeror shall meet the general standards described in FAR 9.104-1. The

Contracting Officer may consider information provided within any section of the proposal, and other information, not limited to proposal information, when making the determination of responsibility.

M-2 EVALUATION FACTORS AND METHODOLOGY

The Government will begin by confirming that the proposal has been submitted in accordance with (IAW) Attachment 0002 Section L3 – Proposal Content. The Government will then verify that the Offeror has met or exceeded the Minimum Technical Threshold

Rating (MTTR) IAW the Attachment 0006 – HTRO Self-Scoring Matrix. Proposals that are found to be compliant in both content and MTTR will then be evaluated on Past

Performance. Quality will be evaluated (IAW FAR 15.304(c)(2)) in this source selection through consideration of the Offeror’s PTE as a factor. A four-step process will be used to determine which Offeror’s proposals are responsive and qualified to receive an award.

The following is a graphic representation of the proposal validation and evaluation process:

M-2.1 HTRO Step One - Responsiveness

Upon receipt of proposals, The Government will review the entire proposal for compliance with Section L-3 to include the Required Secret Facilities Clearance and a successful

ANSI/ASIS PSC.1 Audits/ISO 18788 Audit Report. Once proposal compliance is verified, the Government will review each Offeror’s technical self-score to ensure it meets the

MTTR of 57,600, or 80% of the total available points. Only those proposals that meet or exceed the MTTR will be further considered for award. Next, the Government will review the Offeror’s PPI sheet for relevant past performance as detailed below in M-2.2.3. Any proposals received with a self-score less than the MTTR will not be evaluated. Any work samples that do not meet the criteria of Attachment 0002 Sections L-3.3.1-L-3.3.3 will either be eliminated or have non-compliant pages removed prior to evaluation. Once the

Government has determined the proposal to be responsive, the Government will then evaluate and validate the Offeror’s PTE.

M.2.2 HTRO Step Two – Past Performance

The USG will evaluate the Offeror’s record of past and current performance to ascertain the probability of successfully performing the required efforts of the solicitation and corresponding attachments.

M.2.2.1 The USG will focus its inquiries on the Offeror's (new corporate entities, subcontractors, Joint Ventures, Partnering or Teaming arrangements, new entities with parent company) record of performance as it relates to all solicitation requirements, schedule, performance and management of 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, Offerors are reminded to include the most recent and relevant efforts in its proposal. Absent any recent and relevant past performance history or when the performance record is so sparse that the USG cannot assign a meaningful confidence assessment rating, the USG will assign the Offeror a neutral confidence rating and the USG will not evaluate the Offeror’s proposal either favorably or unfavorably on past performance. The USG may use data provided by the

Offeror in its proposal and data obtained from any other sources, including but not limited to, data in USG files or data obtained through interviews with personnel familiar with the contractor and its current and past performance under Federal, State or Local USG or commercial contracts for same or similar services. The USG may consider the source and context of information it evaluates as well as general trends in performance and corrective actions. The USG is not obligated to interview all points of contact identified by Offerors. It is the responsibility of the Offeror to provide complete past performance information and thorough explanations as required by Section L. The USG reserves the right to consider any significant past performance after the solicitation closing date and prior to award.

M.2.2.2 In evaluating the past performance factor the USG shall consider each

Offeror's demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract requirements. There are three steps to the past performance evaluation: determining the extent of recency/relevancy of past performance information, assessing quality of past performance of individual efforts and assigning a rating to the past performance factor.

M 2.2.2.1 Recent contracts are defined as follows (not a separate rating):

- Prime contracts, task orders, delivery orders, or first-tier subcontracts awarded or commenced within two years prior to the closing date of this RFP; or

- Were awarded or commenced prior to two years, but a contract period of performance

(i.e., providing services pursuant to the contractor’s performance work statement) remained on-going as of the date of this solicitation.

M.2.2.2.2 Relevancy

Relevancy is not separately rated. When determining relevancy, the USG will review the following for similarity with GPS: 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 Definitions

Rating Description

Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same, similar, or 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.2.2.3 Quality Assessment

The USG will evaluate the quality of the Offeror’s past performance on those recent efforts that were determined relevant by determining how well the contractor performed on the contracts. Documented results from the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting

System (CPARS) and other sources for the support and basis for this assessment.

M.2.2.4 Performance Confidence Assessment

The USG will select the most appropriate rating from the chart below. The USG will consider the assessed relevancy/recency and quality of past performance to determine a single performance confidence rating for past performance.

Performance Confidence Assessments

Rating Description

Acceptable 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.

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.

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 factor of past performance.

The USG will conduct its analysis by evaluating the information submitted by the Offeror in response to L.3.2, its respective sections, or other sources as discussed in Section

M.2.2.1

M-2.3 Pre-award documentation (EEO Clearance and Facilities Clearance)

The USG will evaluate Contractor’s pre-award documentation as detailed in Section L-2.6

& L-3.1.2. M-2.3.1 Secret Facilities Clearance: The USG will evaluate the proposal to ensure that the offeror and any new corporate entities, subcontractors, Joint Ventures, Partnering or Teaming arrangements, new entities with parent company involved in the project have a current US or NATO Facility clearance at the SECRET level in accordance with DoDD 5220.22, National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual. This evaluation will include reviewing the offeror's proof of a current Facility clearance at the time of proposal submission. For newly formed partnerships, joint ventures, or limited liability companies, the USG will review documentation showing that all partners or member companies of the partnership currently possess the required Facility Clearance. If the USG determines that the offeror or any subcontractors do not currently possess a

SECRET level clearance, the proposal will be deemed non-compliant and will not be considered for award.

M-2.4 HTRO Step Three – Scoring Validation

The HTRO methodology requires the Offeror to submit a self-rated score based on the objective criteria described in Section L. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s PTE (Section L-3.3) by validating the proposed Self Scoring Matrix (GPS Attachment 0014 ((Section L Appendix B)). The Government will validate the Offeror’s self-rated scores using the Offeror’s Cross Reference Matrix (see GPS Attachment 0014 Cross reference Matrix (Section L Appendix C)) and the work samples provided. If the work sample is written in a language other than English, it must be translated by a certified third-party translator. Both the original non-English version and the certified translated copy must be provided. If the Government is unable to find the substantiating information within the referenced page, paragraph, table, etc. of the work sample, the Government will not search further for the substantiating information. If the Government is unable to validate that Offeror’s self-rated score based on the work samples and Cross Reference Matrix, the Government may unilaterally downward adjust the Offeror’s self-rated score, potentially down to zero points. The Government will only adjust the Offeror’s self-rated score downward, not upward. Such adjustments are within the sole discretion of the Government and are based upon the substantiation of the self-rated score provided by the Offeror. The Government-validated PTE score must demonstrate qualifying experience with a MTTR of at least 80% of the maximum score, which is 57,600 points totaled on the Self-Scoring Matrix.

END

M-2.4 HTRO Step Three – Scoring Validation