Attachment 0020 - Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award - 23NOV2020.docx

W31P4Q-20-R-0015 Attachment 0020

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

A. BASIS FOR AWARD

This is a best-value tradeoff acquisition conducted In Accordance With (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.101-1, Tradeoff Process, and FAR 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Department of Defense Source Selection Procedures (2016), Army Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFARS) 5115.3, Source Selection and Army Source Selection Supplement (2017). These regulations are available electronically at the http://www.acquisition.gov . The Government will select for award the proposal meeting all eligibility requirements and representing the best overall value to the Government, considering Schedule, Management, Small Business Participation and Cost/Price. The Government may only award a contract to the Offeror who is deemed responsible IAW the FAR, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the Request For Proposal (RFP) requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by the instructions), and which is judged, based on the evaluation factors, to represent the best value to the Government. Best value means the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the Government’s estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirements. The Government seeks to award to the Offeror who gives the Government the greatest confidence that it will best meet or exceed the requirements. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced Offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the technical superiority and/or overall business approach of the higher price Offeror outweighs the cost difference.

The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all evaluation criteria in the RFP (described below). While the Government proposal evaluation team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the evaluation process, by its nature, is subjective and, therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

Strengths identified in the successful offerors proposal will be incorporated in the resultant contract.

Number of Contracts to be Awarded The Government intends to select one contractor for this acquisition. However, the Government reserves the right not to award a contract at all, depending on the quality of the proposals and prices submitted and the availability of funds.

Correction Potential of Proposals The Government will consider throughout the evaluation, the “correction potential” of any proposal aspect evaluated as “unacceptable”. The judgment of such “correction potential” is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of an offeror's proposal not meeting the Government's requirements is not considered correctable or if the amount and/or complexity of the corrections needed to meet the Government requirement requires a major proposal revision, the offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range.

Rejection of Offers The Government may reject any evaluated proposal that is nonresponsive or noncompliant. This includes proposals which fail to adequately address a significant portion of the requirement or contract terms and conditions, which do not demonstrate an adequate understanding of the contract/program requirements, and/or which display a fundamental lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risk of the program. A nonresponsive offeror could be thrown out prior to any evaluation, after doing the preliminary compliance check. Noncompliance issues are usually found during the evaluation and rated as a deficiency, although these can occur prior to the evaluation as well. All aspects/volumes of the proposals may be reviewed to ensure adequate resources to perform the proposed technical approach. A proposal assessed as Technically Unacceptable will not be further evaluated under the Cost/Price factor.

Competitive Range Determination During the evaluation process multiple competitive range determinations may be made that eliminate offerors from the competition. A competitive range determination may eliminate offerors based on their initial proposal evaluation results, after discussions (if necessary), prior to issuance of the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) request or for efficiency. If offerors are excluded from the competitive range they may request a debriefing IAW FAR 15.505.

1.1 Solicitation Requirements (Terms and Conditions)

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and SOW requirements, in addition to those identified as factors in this document. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions as unacceptable, and the proposal, therefore, will be ineligible for award.

B. FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

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 Cost/Price factor in the event that the Schedule, Management, and Small Business Participation evaluation results in all the offerors’ proposals being evaluated as substantially the same.

Factor 1: Schedule. The Schedule factor is further divided into the following subfactors.

a. Subfactor 1 – Technical Maturity

b. Subfactor 2 – Production Maturity

Evaluation of the offeror’s proposal shall address each Schedule subfactor as it applies to the Statement of Work (SOW). 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 Schedule subfactor an adjectival rating that includes an assessment of risk, as listed in Table 2, and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the identified findings. The Government will roll up subfactor ratings into an overall rating at the Factor level for Schedule.

Factor 2 – Management. The Management factor is further divided into the following subfactors.

a. Subfactor 1 - System Synchronization and Metrics

b. Subfactor 2 - Depot Subcontractor Management

Evaluation of the offeror’s proposal shall address each Management subfactor as it applies to the Statement of Work (SOW). 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 Management subfactor an adjectival rating that includes an assessment of risk, as listed in Table 2, and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the identified findings. The Government will roll up subfactor ratings into an overall rating at the Factor level for Management.

Factor 3 – Small Business Participation. Each offeror’s level and degree of commitment to utilize small business in execution of the requirement will be evaluated.

Factor 4 - Cost/Price. The resulting award will be a FPIF/CPIF/CPFF/CNF. Cost realism will be utilized in the evaluation of Cost Reimbursable efforts. Price reasonableness will be utilized in the evaluation of the Fixed Price effort.

Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors The Schedule Factor is significantly more important than the Management Factor.

The Management Factor is significantly more important than the Small Business Participation Factor.

Within the Schedule Factor, the Technical Maturity Sub-factor is more important than the Production Maturity Sub-factor.

Within the Management Factor, the System Synchronization and Metrics Sub-factor is significantly more important than the Depot Subcontracting Sub-factor.

Large business offerors must have an acceptable Small Business Subcontracting Plan to receive an award in accordance with FAR 19.702(a).

Offerors will be cautioned that the award may not necessarily be made to the lowest cost offeror. NOTE: ALL NON- PRICED FACTORS COMBINED ARE SIGNIFICANTLY MORE IMPORTANT THAN COST/PRICE.

C. EVALUATION APPROACH

All proposals shall be evaluated by the Source Selection Team (SST).

1. The overarching evaluation approach for all factors and subfactors is as follows:

a. 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.

b. 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.

FACTOR 1 – SCHEDuLE Schedule Factor Overview The Schedule Factor is divided into 2 Subfactors. The Government will assess the completeness and extent of understanding of the offeror’s schedule approach to meeting the requirements set forth in the RFP. The Government will assign each Schedule subfactor an adjectival rating that includes an assessment of risk, as listed in Table 2, and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the identified findings. The Government will roll up subfactor ratings into an overall rating at the Factor level for Schedule. The Government will evaluate proposals for strengths, significant strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses and deficiencies.

Subfactor 1: Technical Maturity The technical maturity will be evaluated using two scenarios. (Network Enclosure Assembly (NEA) Design Approach; and Cooperative Aviation Surveillance System (CASS) to Passive Detection and Reporting System (PDRS) Design Approach). The government will evaluate the offeror's proposal for the extent to which it provides an adequate/sufficient capability and approach to meet the following two scenarios. The Government will evaluate the Preliminary Class 1 ECP solutions in a subjective manner, addressing the totality of all data submitted by the offerors in support of the potential implementation of the Class 1 ECPs. The data submitted by the offerors for the two scenarios, will not be evaluated separately but will be combined and evaluated as a preliminary Class 1 ECP assessments.

Scenario 1: NEA The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s understanding and approach to meet the requirements stated in Section L, Volume II, Section I, Scenario 1, NEA.

The Government’s evaluation will address the benefits, shortcomings and risk of the proposed scenario solution.

Scenario 2: CASS to PDRS design approach The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s understanding and approach for substituting the CASS system with the PDRS system stated in Section L, Volume II, Section I, Scenario 2.

The Government will evaluate the method for accomplishment of the work and how the work will be performed to maintain quality results and enhance the capabilities of the Engagement Operations Center (EOC). The Government will evaluate offeror's ability to provide an adequate/sufficient approach for replacing the current CASS with the PDRS.

The Government’s evaluation will address the benefits, shortcomings and risk of the proposed scenario solution.

Subfactor 2: Production Maturity The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposal demonstrates an understanding and sound approach to meet the requirements stated in Section L, Volume II, Section 2, Subfactor 2. The government will evaluate the offeror's proposal for the extent to which it provides an adequate/sufficient capability to provide a sound approach to Production Maturity.

The Government will evaluate the benefits, shortcomings and risk of the proposed capabilities.

FACTOR 2 – Management Management Factor Overview The Management factor is divided into 2 subfactors. The Government will assess the completeness and extent of understanding of the offeror’s management approach to meeting the requirements set forth in the RFP. The Government will assign each Management subfactor an adjectival rating that includes an assessment of risk, as listed in Table 2, and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the identified findings. The Government will roll up subfactor ratings into an overall rating at the Factor level for Management. The Government will evaluate proposals for strengths, significant strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses and deficiencies.

Subfactor 1: System Synchronization and Metrics The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s understanding and approach to System synchronization as set forth in Section L Volume III, Section I, Subfactor 1. System synchronization is the management of IBCS hardware and software integration to ensure consistency in product acceptance, Materiel Fielding, support of fielded systems, implementing new capability growth and support of Government simulation labs.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to managing the execution of the contract using quantifiable metrics.

The Government will evaluate the benefits, shortcomings and risk of the proposed approaches.

Subfactor 2: Depot Subcontractor Management.

The Government will evaluate the offerors past experience and current approach to identifying work that will be allocated as subcontractor work to Army depots as set forth in Section L Volume III, Section 2, Subfactor 2. The contractor shall identify the work that will be allocated as subcontractor work for the Army Depots.

The Government will evaluate the benefits, shortcomings and risk of the proposed approach.

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 below). This methodology considers risk, in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings. Factor 1, Schedule Subfactors and Factor 2, Management subfactors will be evaluated using the Combined Technical/Risk Ratings listed in Table 1 below.

The Government will roll up subfactor ratings into an overall rating at the Factor level for Schedule and Management.

Table 1: Factor 1 and 2 Rating Scheme

TABLE 1 – COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

Factor 3: Small Business Participation. IAW Defense FAR Supplement (DFARS) 215.304(c)(i), the extent to which offeror’s identify and commit to small business performance of the contract shall be evaluated. All Offerors (both large and small businesses) will be evaluated on the level of proposed commitment to utilize U.S. small businesses in the performance of acquisition (as small business prime Offerors or small business subcontractors) based on percentage of total contract value (price) and not based on total subcontracting value. The Government will evaluate the following:

a. The extent to which such firms, as defined in FAR Part 19, are specifically identified in proposals;

b. The extent of commitment to use such firms (and enforceable commitments will be considered more favorably than nonenforceable ones);

c. Identification of the complexity and variety of the work small firms are to perform;

d. The extent of commitment of small business participation in terms of the percentage of the value of the total acquisition.

e. The extent of overall management and oversight of subcontractors.

f. The extent of evidence (small business utilization) in support of small business goal attainment on prior and similar work effort to ensure realistic and attainable goals.

g. The extent of evidence of supply chain subcontractors, including information technology subcontractors and suppliers that are proposed for use at any time in the performance of the contract and may involve the use of all-source intelligence information.

Based on the evaluation of the small business participation and commitment as discussed above in (a) – (g), this factor shall be rated using the definitions found below in Table 2.

TABLE 2. Small Business Participation Factor Rating Definitions

*Proposed target goals shall be evidenced and substantiated by the Small Business Commitment Document. The Commitment Document will become part of the resultant contract. Proposed target goals that meet or exceed the examples above may not receive the coordinating rating above.

Findings Definitions

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 appreciably advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Strength. An aspect of an offerors’ 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. See FAR 15.001.

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

Deficiency. 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. See FAR 15.001.

Uncertainty. Any aspect of a non-cost/price factor proposal for which the intent of the offeror 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).

Factor 4: Cost/Price.

Adjectival ratings shall not be used for offerors’ Cost/Price proposals. The Government reserves the right to make award based upon the Cost/Price factor in the event that the Schedule, Management, and Small Business Participation evaluation results of all the offerors’ proposals are substantially the same. The Government will fully evaluate all CLINs’ and ordering periods’ proposed prices. The evaluation of all CLINs and ordering periods will not obligate the Government to issue delivery orders/task orders in any ordering period.

The Total Evaluated Price for the IDIQ consists of summing-

(1) the proposed FPIF target amounts,

(2) the CPIF target probable cost amount plus proposed target fee,

(3) the CPFF probable cost amount plus proposed fixed fee, and

(4) the Cost No Fee Government provided plug amounts, and

(5) if applicable, the GFP Price Adjustment.

The Total Evaluated Price for TO 0001 consists of summing-

(1) the proposed FPIF target amounts,

(2) the CPIF target probable cost amount plus proposed target fee,

(3) the CPFF probable cost amount plus proposed fixed fee, and

(4) the Cost No Fee probable cost amounts, and

(5) if applicable, the GFP Price Adjustment

The offeror’s Cost/Price proposal will be evaluated for the following:

(a) Compliance with Section L- Volume IV Cost/Price: The Cost/Price proposal submitted by the offeror will be evaluated for compliance based upon the submission requirements contained in the Section L- Volume IV Cost/Price instructions.

(b) Unbalanced Pricing: The offeror’s Cost/Price proposal will be evaluated for unbalanced pricing as defined in FAR 15.404-1(g). Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly over- or understated as indicated by the application of cost and price analysis techniques. Offerors are cautioned that a proposal the Government assesses to be unbalanced as to price, may either be rejected or determined unacceptable for award. See FAR 15.404-1(g) for information on unbalanced pricing.

(c) Business Systems: The Government will verify the adequacy of the offeror’s accounting system and purchasing system.

(d) Reasonableness: The Cost/Price proposal submitted by the offeror will be evaluated to determine if it is reasonable. In accordance with FAR 31.201-3, a cost/price is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business.

(e) Cost Realism: A cost realism analysis will be performed on the cost-reimbursement (CPIF, CPFF, and CNF) CLINs to determine whether specific estimated proposed cost elements are realistic for the work to be performed; reflect a clear understanding of contract requirements; and are consistent with the unique methods of performance described in the offeror’s proposal. The realism analysis will also be used to evaluate the offeror’s understanding of the contract’s technical requirements and the risk associated with the offeror’s proposal. Therefore, the offeror is advised to clearly show justification for unique practices that significantly lower costs. The offeror’s CPIF proposal and estimates will be traced from the Cost/Price proposal volume basis of estimates to the performance of the requirements addressed in the proposal. The Government will perform an evaluation of the technical elements contained within the offeror’s Cost/Price proposal to perform the SOW. The results of the Government’s evaluation of the Cost/Price proposal’s technical elements may be incorporated into the cost realism evaluation.

The offeror’s proposed fee dollars will be utilized in the Government’s evaluation of the cost-reimbursement CLINs.

For CPIF, the offeror’s proposed incentive fee structure will be evaluated to verify that the offeror proposed the share ratios, target fee, minimum fee, and maximum fee in accordance with the Section L- Volume IV proposal instructions.

For CPFF, the Government’s will evaluate the proposed fee dollars to verify that they do not exceed the statutory limitation of FAR 15.404-4(c)(4)(i). For a CPFF contract, the fee shall not exceed 10 percent of the contract’s estimated cost, excluding fee.

The results of the cost realism evaluation will be used to determine the probable cost of performance as it relates to the technical approach proposed by each offeror and will be utilized in the selection of the offer that provides the best value to the Government. As part of the cost realism analysis to determine the probable cost, the Government will calculate an evaluated cost by adjusting each offeror’s proposed cost to reflect any additions in cost elements to realistic levels based on the results of the cost realism analysis. The evaluated cost may differ from the proposed cost and will reflect the Government’s best estimate of the cost that is most likely to result from the offeror’s proposal. If the total evaluated cost is higher than the proposed cost, the total evaluated cost will be used in the probable cost. If the total evaluated cost is lower than the proposed cost, the proposed cost will be used in the probable cost. For the FPIF CLINs, price realism will not be conducted.