Attachment 03 Section M.pdf

PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY FULL TEXT

M-1 BASIS FOR AWARD

1) The Government intends to award a task order to the responsible Offeror whose proposal conforms to the Fair Opportunity Proposal Request (FOPR) requirements and is determined to be the most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation criteria described further below.

i) The Government reserves the right to award to a lower priced Offeror when the proposals are considered essentially equal in terms of all non-price factors, or when specific positives associated with a technically superior offer do not support the payment of the associated premium.

ii) The Government may not evaluate every requirement of the FOPR; however, the awarded contractor must comply with all requirements of the awarded task order.

iii) Although the Government may waive informalities and minor irregularities in proposals received, failure to comply with terms and conditions of the FOPR may adversely impact the Offeror's evaluation results and may result in the Offeror being removed from consideration for award.

iv) Any proposal determined to have an existing organizational conflict of interest (OCI) pertaining to the prime or any of the proposed subcontractors may be removed from further consideration for award at any point during the evaluation. Task order award will only be made to an Offeror that has no organizational conflicts of interest as defined in FAR Subpart 9.5 or has provided a satisfactory mitigation plan, as determined by the Government.

2) FORMAL SOURCE SELECTION PROCEDURES DO NOT APPLY.

This FOPR, evaluation, and task order award will be conducted pursuant to FAR 16.505. It is the intention of the Government to award one task order as a result of this FOPR. This streamlined evaluation and award contains fewer proposal submission requirements, a reduced page limitation, and is not being conducted using the formal source selection procedures of FAR Subpart 15.2. Award will be made to that

Offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government under the evaluation criteria set forth in the FOPR.

Because this streamlined evaluation and award is not using the formal source selection procedures of

FAR Subpart 15.2, procedures such as a competitive range determination, pre-award notifications to

Offerors excluded from a competitive range, and requesting final proposal revisions from all Offerors included within a competitive range are not required. The use of terminology similar to that of FAR

Subpart 15.2, Government questions and comments, and Offeror answers and responses do not constitute discussions, clarifications, communications, or exchanges as used in FAR Subpart 15.2.

Under FAR 16.505, the Government is required to afford all Offerors under the multiple-award contract a fair opportunity to submit a proposal and have that proposal fairly considered. Accordingly, the

Government will evaluate each Offeror's proposal fairly, similarly, and in accordance with the FOPR's evaluation criteria. If the Government does not award on initial proposals, it is not required to establish a competitive range comprised of all of the most highly rated proposals. Thus, the Government will not hold “discussions” with all Offerors who may have a reasonable chance for award. Accordingly, the

Offeror's initial proposal must contain the Offeror's best terms, conditions, and prices. Because the

Government is not making a competitive range determination, pre-award debriefings and pre-award notifications of exclusion are not required under FAR Subpart 16.5, and the Government will NOT provide them.

After the Government has afforded all Offerors under the multiple-award contract a fair opportunity to submit an offer and have that offer fairly considered, the TOSO may take or direct one or more of the following actions:

i) Award to the Offeror whose initial proposal conforms to the FOPR’s requirements and is determined to be the most advantageous for the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation criteria described in this FOPR;

ii) Obtain written resolutions from the Offeror whose initial proposal is determined to be the most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation criteria and would be awardable under the FOPR's evaluation criteria but for a few easily-resolvable informalities, minor irregularities, or negative findings, that the resolution of which do not remove evaluated positive findings or increase the Offeror's total evaluated price set forth in Section B of the task order;

iii) Obtain price supporting information, without obtaining a revised proposal or increase in proposed price, from an Offeror whose initial proposal conforms to the FOPR’s requirements and is the most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation criteria described in the FOPR,

iv) Further directly negotiate with, and obtain a revised proposal from, the Offeror whose initial proposal conforms to the FOPR’s requirements and is the most advantageous to the government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation criteria described in the FOPR, as long as the revised proposal does not remove evaluated positive findings or increase the Offeror’s proposed total evaluated price set forth in Section B of the task order;

v) Further consider only those Offerors that are most likely to provide the most advantageous revised proposals to participate in one-on-one sessions and submit revised proposals; or

vi) Not award to any Offeror.

3) The Government will first evaluate each Offeror’s proposal against the evaluation criteria in the FOPR for Factors 1, 2, and 3 and identify any positive and negative findings. Then the Government will perform a comparative analysis by comparing Offerors’ proposals to one another pertaining to Factors 1, 2, and 3.

In performing its analysis, the evaluation team will consider the positive and negative findings assessed for each proposal at the factor level. Based on this comparison, the evaluation team will determine which proposal(s) are "most suitable" or “not most suitable” in each factor. “Most suitable” is defined as the proposal contains findings in the evaluation that have merit and/or provide a benefit to the Government;

and/or favorably affect the demonstrated understanding of the requirements, adequacy of approach, or associated risk to performance. “Not most suitable” is defined as the proposal contains findings in the evaluation that do not demonstrate understanding of the requirements, adequacy of approach, or that increase associated risk to performance. The Government intends to identify one “most suitable” Offeror for each non-cost factor. However, the Government reserves the right to determine more than one proposal as "most suitable" for a factor where the Offeror's findings are considered essentially equal.

The Government will then proceed to evaluate Factor 4, Price. The Government will then determine which Offeror is most advantageous for award by performing a combined analysis of all factors.

After the Contracting Officer has reviewed the technical evaluation team’s determination of which proposal(s) are "most suitable" or “not most suitable” in each factor, the Contracting Officer may solicit feedback regarding which offer is the most advantageous to the Government.

As required by FAR 16.505, the Task Order Selection Official (TOSO) will document his/her basis for award. The TOSO's most advantageous decision is, in and of itself, a subjective assessment based on the evaluation results and the relative importance of the factors as described in paragraph (4) below.

Interchanges are fluid interaction(s) between the Contracting Officer and Offerors that may address any aspect of the proposal and may or may not be documented in real time. The Government intends to make an award based on the initial proposal submissions without conducting interchanges. Therefore, each offer should contain the Offeror's best terms from a price and technical standpoint. However, the

Government reserves the right to conduct interchanges using Interchange Notices (INs) if, during the evaluation, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government. Offeror responses to INs will be considered in making the order selection decision. Interchanges may be conducted with one, some, or all

Offerors as Government is not required to conduct interchanges with any Offeror responding to this

FOPR.

The Government may decide to incorporate specific features of an Offeror’s proposed approach into the

PWS or other section(s) of the task order at any time prior to award. If the selection official has selected an apparent successful Offeror, and the apparent successful Offeror does not agree to include any of the

Offeror’s proposed features directly into the PWS or other section(s) of the task order prior to award, the

Government will revise its evaluation record for the selection official, which may or may not change the task order selection decision, depending upon the proposed feature’s benefit(s) to the Government.

4) Evaluation Criteria

Evaluation Factors

(iv) Proposals shall be evaluated relative to the following factors which are listed in descending order of importance:

(1) Factor 1: Technical Management and Customer Support Scenario

(2) Factor 2: IT and Cyber Security Management Scenario

(3) Factor 3: Staffing Plan

(4) Factor 4: Price

The non-price factors (Factors 1, 2, and 3), when combined, are significantly more important than cost. The importance of price as an evaluation factor will increase with the degree of equality of the proposals in relation to the non-price evaluation factors. When offerors are considered essentially equal in terms of technical capability, or when price is so high as to diminish the value of the technical superiority to the Government, the price may become the determining factor for award.

The below provides the basis of evaluations for the non-price factors, Factors 1, 2, and 3.

Responses will be evaluated in terms of quality, depth, and relevance of information presented in response to this FOPR, and risk associated with the Offeror’s proposal. The Offeror’s technical factors will be evaluated based on their adherence to the instructions identified in Section L-

Instructions to Offerors and on the basis of evaluation listed below.

The Government will evaluate Factors 1, 2, and 3 based on the following:

(1) Factor 1 – Technical Management and Customer Support . The Government will evaluate the degree to which the Offeror demonstrates a realistic, effective, and efficient approach and a thorough understanding of the requirements.

(2) Factor 2 – IT and Cyber Security Management The Government will evaluate the degree to which the Offeror demonstrates a realistic, effective, and efficient approach and a thorough understanding of the requirements.

(3) Factor 3 – Staffing Plan. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s labor mix, and labor hours for efficiency and to ascertain whether the labor mix and quantities demonstrate a technical understanding of the requirements.

The definitions below provide the meanings for positive and negative findings that will be used in the evaluation of Factors 1, 2, and 3. The positive and negative findings will be used to facilitate the

Government’s comparative analysis. The evaluation team will perform comparative analysis

(comparing Offeror responses to one another) to determine which is most suitable for award in each individual factor. The evaluation is, in and of itself, a subjective assessment by the Government.

• Positive Finding

An attribute of the offeror’s proposal that provides benefit to the

Government beyond merely meeting the requirements or reflects an approach and understanding of the requirements that indicates the likelihood of contract performance at a level above satisfactory.

• Negative Finding

An attribute of the offeror’s proposal that is inadequately explained, introduces an unacceptable level of risk, fails to meet requirements or reflects an approach or lack of understanding of the requirements that indicates the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

5) Factor 4 –Price

The Government will evaluate Factor 4, Price, based on the completeness, reasonableness and balance of the data. For the purpose of determining task order award value, the Government will utilize the total price of all FFP CLINs, combined with the estimated Cost values provided by the

Government; added together, the total of all FFP CLINs and Cost CLINs will result in Total

Evaluated Price.

a. Completeness: A proposal is complete if the Offeror provides price data for all FOPR requirements, as specified in Section L, and the proposed prices are accurate and traceable throughout the price volume.

b. Reasonableness and Balance: The Government will perform an analysis of all FFP items identified in Section B, to assess reasonableness and balanced pricing. Normally, competition establishes price reasonableness, including price balance. The Government will analyze reasonableness and balance based on one or more of the price analysis techniques identified in

FAR 15.404-1. If, after receipt of a proposal, the PCO determines that adequate price competition does not exist and determines that none of the exceptions in FAR 15.403-1(b) apply, the Government will require the Offeror to provide certified cost and pricing data in accordance with FAR 15.403-4.

6) Volume 5 Task Order Documents

Volume 5 of a potential awardee will be evaluated to determine the completeness of its response to the

FOPR prior to the award. The Government reserves the right to initiate interchanges to resolve any outstanding issues before award can be made.

M-2 EVALUATION OF OPTIONS

52.217-5 EVALUATION OF OPTIONS (JUL 1990)

Except when it is determined in accordance with FAR 17.202(b) not to be in the Government's best interests, the Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. Evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).