Attachment 0010 - WSMR MSS Section M 15MAY2025 v2.pdf

M.1 Basis for Contract Award

M.1.1 An award will be made utilizing Best Value Trade Off source selection evaluation procedures in which competing proposals will be evaluated IAW FAR 15.101-1, utilizing DoD Source Selection Procedures and Army Source Selection Supplement (AS3). The 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. To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than “Acceptable” must be achieved for the Technical / Mission Capability Factor (to include all Sub-Factors). If any Technical Sub-Factor is rated less than “Acceptable” it will render the factor unacceptable and therefore unawardable.

M.1.1.1 Evaluation criteria consist of factors and sub-factors. The proposals will be evaluated under four (4) evaluation factors:

• Volume I; Factor 1: Mission Capability o Sub-Factor 1A: Management and Staffing o Sub-Factor 1B: Continuity of Operations

• Volume II; Factor 2: Past Performance

• Volume III; Factor 3: Small Business Participation (SBP) Factor

• Volume IV; Factor 4: Cost/Price

The relative order of importance in this acquisition is as follows; Mission Capability is significantly more important than Past Performance. Past Performance is equal to Small Business Participation. The Mission Capability Sub-Factors are not equally rated. Sub- Factor 1A, Management and Staffing Plan, is significantly more important than Sub- Factor 1B, Continuity of Operations. IAW FAR 15.304(e), all evaluation factors other than Cost/Price, when combined, are significantly more important than the Cost/Price factor. The Source Selection Authority (SSA) will make an award to the responsible Contractor IAW FAR Subpart 9.105 whose offer conforms to the solicitation and is determined to provide the best value to the Government considering price and non-price factors with relative importance assigned to each. This may result in an award to other than the lowest priced Offeror.

M.1.1.1.1 Number of Awards. The Government intends to award one CPFF contract, with a firm fixed price (FFP) CLIN for Phase-In, and a Cost Reimbursable CLIN for ODCs/Travel. The Government reserves the right to make no award at all, should that be in the best interest of the Government.

M.2 Exchanges with Offerors after Proposal Submission

M.2.1 Offerors are advised the Government may make award without clarifications, exchanges, or discussions, regarding the proposals received in response to this solicitation. Offerors are to submit its best offer, with its most favorable terms from all aspects, terms, and conditions of the requirement. Offerors must NOT assume an opportunity to clarify, discuss or revise proposals will occur, however, the Government reserves the right to discuss aspects of proposals with Offerors, as authorized and appropriate IAW FAR 52.215-1(f)(4).

M.2.1.1 Clarifications. The Government reserves the right to conduct clarifications with all Offerors not otherwise rejected. Clarifications are limited exchanges, between the Government and Offerors that may occur whether or not discussions are contemplated.

The following are examples, but not an all-inclusive list, of clarification information that may be requested: minor or clerical errors, an Offeror’s response to the intent of its proposal where an inconsistency or ambiguity exists, the relevance of an Offeror’s past performance information, or adverse past performance information to which the Offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond.

M.2.1.1.1 Discussions. Upon conclusion of the initial proposal evaluation and ratings, if discussions are determined to be necessary, the KO may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals. Discussions will only be conducted with Offerors determined to be within the competitive range. The Government reserves the right not to conduct discussions.

M.3 Proposal Evaluation

M.3.1 Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools in Proposal Evaluation

M.3.1.1 Use of AI tools in Support of Evaluations: The Government reserves the right to employ AI as a tool to assist in the analysis and review of Offeror proposals. AI tools may be used to support tasks such as summarizing proposal content, identifying compliance with request for task order proposal / solicitation requirements, and highlighting areas of potential strength, weakness, or risk.

M.3.1.2 Maintaining Inherently Governmental Functions: Notwithstanding the use of AI tools to support the evaluation process, all final evaluation judgements, including the assignment or assessment of adjectival ratings, best value determinations, and source selection decisions, will be made exclusively by duly appointed Government personnel.

The Government retains sole responsibility for all inherently governmental functions and will not delegate decision-making authority to any AI tool.

M.3.1.3 Offeror Confidentiality and Data Protection: If used, 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. The AI tool will be an output-only system. Any generated report data is not saved. No proposal data will be transmitted to or processed by external, non-Government systems without appropriate safeguards and authorizations in place.

M.3.2 Ratings. The Government will evaluate the Technical Approach Factor and Sub- Factors using the following adjectival scale:

M.3.2.1 Combined Technical/Risk Rating. The combined technical risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the significant strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings.

Offerors will be evaluated using the combined technical/risk ratings listed in Table 1 and the risk descriptions set forth in Table 1B:

Table 1B. Technical Risk Rating Method Adjectival Rating Description Low Proposed may contain 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 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

TABLE 1 – COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

Color 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 indicates 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 unawardable, and/or risk of performance is unacceptably high.

Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

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

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

M.3.2.2 Strengths and Weaknesses will be assessed as follows:

Significant Strength An aspect of an Offerors’ proposal that has appreciable merit or appreciably exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be 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 A materiel 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.

M.4 VOLUME I; FACTOR 1: MISSION CAPABILITY

M.4.1 The Mission Capability approach will be evaluated to determine the extent that the Offeror understands the Governments requirement, the technical quality of the proposed approach, and the Offerors ability to fulfill the requirements of the PWS in meeting the performance criteria.

M.4.1.1 Understanding of the Requirements: The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror demonstrates a clear understanding of the requirements to be satisfied. The Government will evaluate the extent to which uncertainties are identified and resolutions proposed. The Government will evaluate the Offerors submission to determine the degree to which the Offeror provides a logical and effective approach for providing the personnel and compliance requirements necessary to properly execute contract requirements.

M.4.1.1.1 Completeness/Adequacy of Response: The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposal adequately and completely considers, defines, and satisfies the PWS and other requirements specified in Section L – Information to Offerors and Instructions for Proposal Preparation. The Government will evaluate the extent to which each requirement of the RFP has been addressed in the proposal IAW the proposal instructions provided in the RFP. Mere statements of compliance or repetition of the requirements without a complete analysis is unsatisfactory.

The Government will evaluate the Offerors understanding of the requirements and the completeness/adequacy of the response under the three Sub-Factors:

M.4.1.2 SUB-FACTOR 1A: MANAGEMENT AND STAFFING PLAN

M.4.1.2.1 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed key personnel qualifications by reviewing submitted resumes for personnel identified at PWS paragraph 1.10. IAW PWS paragraph 1.10.1, the Government shall not accept lesser qualifications as originally proposed. Should the successful Offeror’s proposed resume exceed the minimum qualifications stated in the PWS, the PWS will be modified prior to award to match the enhanced qualifications of the proposed personnel, and these qualifications will become the new minimum in the PWS.

M.4.1.2.2 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed organizational and management structure as provided in its organizational flow chart(s), demonstrating teaming arrangements, functional and supervisory lines of control, and roles and responsibilities the Offeror is including in its approach to successfully execute and perform the WSMR MSS requirements. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to prime/subcontract integration, decision-making, workload responsibilities, and problem resolution, and the rationale for the organizational design proposed.

M.4.1.2.3 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed plan to recruit and retain a workforce possessing the unique and critical skills needed to successfully perform the requirements of the PWS, with an emphasis on PWS Part 5, Specific Tasks. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed ability to react to surge requirements and how it intends to staff the requirement with specialized personnel on short notice, and its approach in staffing fluid requirements where workload demands increase/decrease unpredictably.

M.4.1.3 SUB-FACTOR 1B: CONTINUITY OF OPERATIONS

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed transition plan in meeting the requirements of PWS paragraph 1.20, and its approach for minimizing disruption of operations due to contract transition and assumption of workload for sustained continuity of operations.

M.4.1.3.1 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach for assuming full contractual responsibility without disruption or degradation of performance during the transition period, to include identification of risks and proposed mitigation strategies.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s transition schedule to include milestones on how it proposes to become fully operational within the required 90-day phase-in period.

M.4.1.3.2 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed staffing plan for the phase-in period, to include identified and qualified resources available on hand to immediately begin performance upon contract award. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s detailed approach on how it plans to ensure availability of trained and qualified personnel in the event resources are unavailable when needed.

M.4.1.3.3 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach for realignment of incumbent personnel to minimize interruption of services or delays in work progress that could potentially impact the overall mission. The Offeror shall detail how it proposes to capture efficiencies in knowledge transfer and workload transfer to ensure successful mission execution during the phase-in period.

M.4.1.3.4 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s one-page description of its property management system and/or plan on how it intends to successfully manage Government property under this contract by utilizing customary practices, voluntary consensus standards, and/or industry-leading practices.

M.5 VOLUME II; FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE

Past performance information is evaluated as a predictor of future contract performance. 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.

M.5.1 The Government may use information obtained from other sources or may use information with regard to other contracts or orders performed by the Offeror of which it has knowledge. The Government may review the Offeror’s current and prior performance record of complying with all aspects of its contractual agreement. This evaluation will include Quality, Schedule, Management/Business Relations, and Cost Control. The Government is not required to interview all points of contact identified by the Offeror. Other sources the Government may utilize include, but are not limited to, Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), System for Award Management (SAM), and Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPISS).

M.5.1.1 The Government may use recency, relevancy, source and context of the past performance information it evaluates as well as general trends in performance and demonstrated corrective actions. A significant achievement, problem and problem resolution or lack of relevant data in any element can become an important consideration in the evaluation process. A negative finding in any element could result in a lower past performance (confidence) rating.

M.5.1.1.1 Only the prime Offeror will be assessed, evaluated, and provided a past performance rating. There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation:

recency, relevancy, and quality.

M.5.1.1.2 The first aspect is to evaluate the recency of the Offeror’s past performance.

Recency is defined as a Government contract that has been awarded within the past five (5) years of issuance of this RFP and is at least 20% complete. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

M.5.1.1.3 The second aspect is to determine the relevancy of the Offeror’s past performance. Relevancy is not separately rated, however, the following criteria (see Table 2) will be used to establish the Offeror’s relevancy. One of the following Past Performance Relevancy Ratings will be assigned:

TABLE 2 - PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

RELEVANCY 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.5.1.1.4 The third aspect assesses the overall quality of the Offeror’s past performance. Documented results from past performance questionnaires, interview, CPARS, and other sources from the form the support and basis for this assessment.

M.5.1.1.5 Each Offeror will receive a Performance Confidence Assessment Rating based on the information evaluated within the past performance volume:

TABLE 3 - PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT RATING

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.

M.5.1.1.6 The Government will conduct a Performance Confidence Assessment to establish a Confidence Assessment Rating for each Offeror. The Confidence Assessment Rating assigned will be based on the Offeror’s recent and relevant performance record and the expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

M.5.1.1.7 Contracts submitted in the Past Performance Factor volume of the Offeror’s proposal will not be considered if the Government determines them to be not recent, not relevant, or lacking any credible past performance information. Offerors without a record of recent and/or relevant past performance information upon which to base a meaningful confidence assessment will be rated as “Neutral Confidence”, which is neither favorable nor unfavorable.

M.5.1.1.8 The Offeror may also be evaluated on past contract performance information based on internal Government or private source information and reserves the right to use any information received as part of its evaluation. The Government may contact any of the references the Offeror provides and reserves the right to use any information received as part of its evaluation.

M.6 VOLUME III; FACTOR 3: SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION (SBP) FACTOR

M.6.1 All Offerors (both small and other than small businesses) (U.S. and non-U.S.), will be evaluated on the level of proposed participation of small businesses in the performance of this acquisition (as small business prime Offerors or small business subcontractors) relative to the objectives and Minimum Quantitative Requirements (MQRs) established within this solicitation, as detailed within the Offeror’s Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD).

M.6.1.1 The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s SBPCD to determine the extent to which such firms, as defined in FAR Part 19, are specifically identified.

M.6.1.1.1 The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s SBPCD to determine the extent of commitment to use such firms (with enforceable commitments being considered more favorably than non-enforceable ones).

M.6.1.1.2 The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s SBPCD to determine the identification of the complexity and variety of the work small firms are to perform.

M.6.1.1.3 The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s SBPCD to determine the extent of participation of small business prime Offerors and small business subcontractors in terms of the percentage of the Total Contract Value (TCV), and the extent to which the Offeror meets or exceeds the socioeconomic MQRs.

M.6.1.1.4 Small Business Participation Factor Rating Methodology: The Government will assign an overall Small Business Participation Factor Rating based on the level of small business participation in each of the areas listed above, utilizing the Small Business Factor Rating Definitions provided in the table below. Offerors are responsible for ensuring that cost proposal submissions are consistent with the commitments offered in the SBPCD. Inconsistencies between cost proposals and SBPCDs may negatively impact the final small business participation factor rating assigned. Any Offeror found to be “Marginal” or “Unacceptable” under any of the small business participation areas will be automatically assigned a “Marginal” or “Unacceptable” rating for the Small Business Participation Factor respectively.

M.6.1.1.5 Small Business Participation Factor Rating Definitions. The Small Business Participation Factor will be evaluated by the Government using the following adjectival/color rating chart and Small Business Participation Factor Rating Definitions:

TABLE 4 – SMALL BUSINESS RATINGS

Color Rating Description

M.7 VOLUME IV; FACTOR 4: COST/PRICE

The Cost/Price Factor will be evaluated, but not adjectively rated. FAR requires that contracts be awarded at prices that are fair and reasonable. The KO is responsible for the determination of price reasonableness. Prices will be evaluated using price analysis

IAW FAR 15.404-1.

M.7.1 The Government intends to evaluate price reasonableness IAW FAR 15.404-1(b), relying primarily upon competition. The Government expects adequate competition, and a comparison will be made of total evaluated prices received in response to this RFP.

However, the Government reserves the right to require submission of certified cost or pricing data and/or data other than certified cost or pricing data from the Offeror adequate to determine the reasonableness of a price if competition was inadequate for that purpose.

M.7.1.1 Cost realism will be evaluated IAW FAR 15.404-1(d) using other than Certified Cost or Pricing Data requested. The cost realism analysis will be conducted to determine whether the estimated proposed cost elements are realistic for the work to be performed, reflect a clear understanding of the requirements, and are consistent with the unique methods of performance described in the Offeror’s technical proposal. The Government will develop a most probable cost estimate for evaluation purposes only, to determine the overall best value. An evaluation to determine the reasonabless of the Offeror’s proposed labor house skill mix.

M.7.1.1.1 Evaluation of Option to Extend Services. The Government will include an estimate for the Option to Extend Services under FAR Clause 52.217-8 in the total

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Green Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the small business objectives.

evaluated price. For evaluation purposes, the Option to Extend Services will be calculated as one-half of the Offeror’s evaluated price for option period two.

M.7.1.1.2 Therefore, the Offeror’s total price for the purpose of evaluation will include the price of all CLINs for the 90-day phase-in period, 9-month base period, 4-year option periods, and a six-month option to extend for a total period of performance of 5.5 years; that price will be calculated automatically on the Summary Tab of the Price Matrix. Evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the options.

M.7.1.1.3 As part of the evaluation, the Government will review prices to identify any significant unbalanced pricing found between pricing periods, quantity ranges or contract line items as applicable. IAW FAR 15.404-1(g), i.e., Unbalanced Pricing, a proposal may be rejected if the KO determined the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.