Attachment 0004 Basis for Award Evaluation for Award (Section M).pdf

Attachment 0004

SECTION III: BASIS FOR AWARD: EVALUATION FOR AWARD

(SECTION M)

A. Basis for Award

1. This award will be made based on the best overall (i.e., best value) proposal that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the three evaluation factors:

Technical, Past Performance, and Price. The Technical factor (including sub-factors) is significantly more important than the Past Performance and Price factors, which are of equal importance. To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than “Acceptable” must be achieved for the technical factor (to include all subfactors). Offerors will be cautioned that the award may not necessarily be made to the lowest price offered. In selecting the best overall offer, the Government will utilize Best Value Tradeoff processes in accordance with FAR 15.101, and supplemented by DFARS 215.3, and AFARS Appendix AA, Army Source Selection Supplement (AS3), to select the Offeror whose proposal is determined to provide the best value to the Government, with appropriate consideration being given to the three evaluation factors: (1) Technical, (2) Past Performance, and (3) Price. Therefore, the Government may award to other than the lowest priced Offeror, or other than the highest rated Offeror for the non‐cost/price factors. The Government will evaluate proposals submitted in compliance with the solicitation and its stated evaluation criteria to determine the relative strengths, weaknesses, and risks of each proposal. The Government will evaluate each proposal strictly in accordance with its content, except for past performance, for which the Government may also use independent data. The Source Selection Authority (SSA) will compare the proposals to determine the offers that represents the best value to the Government, taking into consideration the stated evaluation factors and their respective weightings as specified in the RFP.

2. The Government reserves the right to not award at all, depending on the quality of proposals, prices submitted, and the availability of funds. An award under this solicitation in no way requires the Government to obligate additional dollars or exercise any option periods. 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 and the KSA.

3. Pursuant to FAR 9.103, the Government will only award a contract to

Offerors that the Contacting Officer determines to be responsible.

Separate from the best value source selection criteria, Offerors must be able to demonstrate that they meet the standard of responsibility set forth in FAR 9.104. The Government may conduct a pre‐award survey on any Offeror considered for award, to assist the Procuring Contracting Officer’s determination of responsibility.

B. Factors and Sub-factors to be Evaluated.

As delineated in Section L, Instruction to Offerors, the Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated on the following criteria:

EVALUATION FACTORS

The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal: Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below. The Government reserves the right to make award based upon the Price factor if the Technical and Past Performance evaluation results of all the offerors’ proposals are substantially the same. Per DFARS 215.3, Source Selection, The Government will follow the principles and procedures in DFARS PGI 215.300, and Director, Defense Pricing and Contracting memorandum dated August 20, 2022, entitled “Department of Defense Source Selection Procedures” and the AFARS Appendix AA, Army Source Selection Supplement dated 28 November 2017. Proposals will be evaluated on a “best value” basis, as follows:

1. Volume 1 – Solicitation and Amendments, Offer and Award Documents and Certifications/Representations:

The Government will determine the appropriateness and completeness of the documentation provided for Volume 1. Ensuring:

a) Active SAM registration: containing company’s UEI number and CAGE code: Registration will be verified via SAM.GOV website of approved contractors. In the event and Offeror fails to provide or possess the appropriate registration documentation/information at the time the proposal is submitted, the proposal will not be further evaluated.

b) Executed RFP and any amendments are signed by an individual authorized to bind the vendor.

c) Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) Business License & Value Added Tax (VAT) Certificate are active and valid.

d) If the Offeror submits an active SAM registration, fully executed RFP (including all amendments, if applicable), an Active/Valid Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) Business License and Value Added Tax (VAT) Certificate, then the following evaluation factor ratings will be applied to the proposals:

2. Factor 1 - Volume 2 ‐ Technical Factor:

• Technical Subfactor 1: Staffing Plan

• Technical Subfactor 2: Transition-In Plan

• Technical Subfactor 3: Contractor Work Plan ORDER OF IMPORTANCE: Subfactors 1: Staffing Plan and 3: Contractor Work Plan are of equal importance. Subfactor 2: Transition-In Plan is of lesser importance than Subfactors 1: Staffing Plan and 3: Contractor Work Plan.

Evaluation of the offeror’s proposal shall address all work as it applies to the PWS, Attachment 0001. A detailed explanation of the criteria for the evaluation is set forth in the “Evaluation Approach”, Paragraph C of this section. During evaluation of each proposal, the Government will assign each Technical subfactor an adjectival rating and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the identified findings.

3. Factor 2 – Volume 3 ‐ Past Performance: Each Offeror’s recent and relevant past performance will be reviewed to determine a confidence assessment.

4. Factor 3 ‐ Volume 4 ‐ Price Factor: The resulting award will be a single award of a Firm Fixed Price contract. Price reasonableness will be utilized in the evaluation of the Firm‐Fixed Price effort.

C. Evaluation Approach for Each Factor and Sub-Factor All proposals shall be evaluated by the Source Selection Team. The overarching evaluation approach for all factors and subfactors is as follows:

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. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which each requirement has been addressed in the proposal in accordance with the proposal submission section of the RFP.

1. Factor 1 –Technical (Proposal Volume 2):

a. Completeness: The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the Offeror’s methods have adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirements specified in the PWS, found at Attachment 0001 of the solicitation and Section L- Instructions to Offerors, related to the Subfactors.

Feasibility of Approach: The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the proposal methods are workable and the end results achievable considering the unique operating environment in the KSA. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which successful performance is contingent upon proven techniques and processes. 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 associated with the Subfactors.

In accordance with the Army Source Selection Supplement (AS3), Section 3.1, the Army methodology for evaluating Technical Approach and Related Risk is the Combined Technical/Risk Rating, (see Table 1). The Government will evaluate the factors and related subfactors using Combined Technical/Risk Rating which includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the significant strengths, strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings.

Table 1: Combined Technical/Risk Color Rating

Adjectival Rating Description

Blue OUTSTANDING Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple

GOOD

Proposal demonstrates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength or significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Green

ACCEPTABLE

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

Yellow MARGINAL Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red

UNACCEPTABLE

Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is un-awardable, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptably high.

Note: For the purposes of evaluating proposals, the following terms and definitions are relevant:

Significant Strength: An aspect of an Offeror's proposal that has appreciable merit or appreciably exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be appreciably advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Strength: 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.

Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Significant Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

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 level.

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).

Subfactor 1: Key Personnel: The Government will evaluate the offeror’s submission of documentation for their proposed key personnel. This will include hiring agreements and/or letters of intent, resumes and/or curriculum vitaes to ensure the key personnel meet the requirements of

PWS 1.7.14.

Subfactor 2: Transition-In Plan: The Government will evaluate the offeror’s plan to fully transition-in to the KSA, including their use of the instructor preparation phase to be ready to hit the ground running on day one of instruction. The Government will review the offeror’s schedule detailing the steps taken during each day of the transition period.

Subfactor 3: Contractor Work Plan: The Government will review the contractor’s plan to deliver instruction; develop, revise, and update curriculum; develop the campaign case study (to include integrating and executing the campaign case study in the form of a field study trip); create, integrate and execute materials; and develop and propose a faculty development training program. The Government will review Attachment 0006 Offeror Staffing Model and Contractor Work Plan.

2. Factor 2. ‐ Past Performance (Proposal Volume 3):

a) 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.

b) Evaluation of past performance shall be performed in accordance with this plan utilizing the forms and questionnaires set forth in Appendix D, Attachment 0005.

c) The past performance evaluation considers each Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements.

d) The Government will focus its inquiries on the Prime and key subcontractors, records of performance as they relate to all solicitation requirements, including cost/price, 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.

e) Offerors are to include the most recent and relevant efforts in their proposal. Absent any recent and relevant past performance history or when the performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror will be assigned a “neutral confidence rating” and its proposal will not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably on past performance. The Government may use data provided by the Offeror in its proposal as well as data obtained from other sources, including data in Government files or data obtained through interviews with personnel familiar with the contractor and their current and past performance under Federal, State, or Local government, or commercial contracts for same or similar services encompassed by the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 611310.

f) The Government will limit review to the Offeror’s three (3) most recent and relevant previous contracts.

g) Relevant is defined by Government and/or commercial contracts for the prime offeror and each key subcontractor in performance, for same or similar services encompassed by the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 611310, to the efforts required by this RFP. Similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities would include having previously completed a program of instruction, that are like or similar which utilized the same or similar processes, critical skills, and capabilities as the current requirement. The Government reserves the right to determine whether experience is like or similar, and whether the experience relates to the current requirements for evaluation purposes. The Government may also consider the degree to which contracts are of a comparable complexity to the proposed effort in determining relevance.

h) Recent is defined as awarded during the past six (6) years, from the issue date of this RFP. The Government may consider a wide array of information from a variety of sources but is not compelled to rely on all of the information available.

Recency and Relevancy. The past performance factor considers each Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying similar services that meet the contract requirements. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant and is critical to establishing the relevancy of past performance information. The criteria to establish what is relevant may include dollar value; contract type; type of work, location of work, degree of subcontract/teaming of the Offeror’s past performance.

Data used in conducting performance risk assessments shall not extend past six (6) years prior to the issue date of the solicitation.

Relevancy is not separately rated; however, the following criteria will be used to establish what is relevant which shall include similarity of service/support, complexity; dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming. The Offeror’s relevancy shall be evaluated using the ratings identified below:

Table 3: Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Rating Definition

Very Relevant Present/past performance involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities performed, instructing a curriculum that contains a like Program of Instruction (POI) to the U.S. Army School of Advanced Military Studies (SAMS) or the U.S. Marine Corps School of Advanced Warfighting (SAW) efforts to an Arabic speaking/culture that this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities performed, instructing a curriculum that contains a like Program of Instruction (POI) to the U.S. Army School of Advanced Military Studies (SAMS) or the U.S. Marine Corps School of Advanced Warfighting (SAW) efforts that this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved similar 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.

Quality Assessment. Assesses the overall quality of the Offeror’s past performance. Documented results from Past Performance Questionnaires (Attachment 0005) interviews, CPARS, and other sources form the support and basis for this assessment.

Performance Confidence Assessment. The final step is for the team to arrive at a single consensus performance confidence assessment for the Offeror, selecting the most appropriate rating from the chart below. This rating considers the assessed quality of the relevant/recent efforts gathered. The Government will ensure that the rationale for the conclusions reached are included.

Table 4: Past Performance Confidence Assessment 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 factor 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.

NOTE: The Government advises Offerors that while an Offeror will not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably for having Neutral past performance, a Neutral rating may be considered during a trade‐off analysis with other Offerors who have a performance rating other than Neutral. For example, in accordance with Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures, the SSA may determine that a "Substantial Confidence" or "Satisfactory Confidence" past performance rating is worth more than a "Neutral Confidence" past performance rating in a best value tradeoff.

3. Factor 3- Price Factor (Proposal Volume 4)

The Government will evaluate price; however, it will not assign an adjectival rating. The FAR requires the Government to award contracts at fair and reasonable prices. The Government will evaluate and assess the Contractor’s price proposal to determine the reasonableness of the offer.

The Contracting Officer may determine it necessary to utilize additional analysis techniques. These methods of evaluation may include information and input from sources such as, but not limited to, other Government agencies and personnel.

The Government will evaluate the FFP CLINs in accordance with FAR 15.404-1, Proposal Analysis Techniques; the Government may use any one or a combination of the techniques listed at FAR 15.404-1 to determine the Contractor’s proposal fair and reasonable. The Government reserves the right to require submission of data other than cost or pricing data adequate to determine the reasonableness of an offer if competition is inadequate for that purpose.

The Government will evaluate the Total Evaluated Price utilizing the proposal analysis techniques IAW with FAR 15.404-1, Proposal Analysis Techniques.

Unbalanced Pricing – As part of the cost evaluation, proposals may be reviewed to identify any Unbalanced Pricing. In accordance with 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.