Attachment 11 - Addendum FAR 52.212-2 Evaluation. .pdf

Evaluation Factors for Award

Addendum to FAR 52.212-2, Evaluation --Commercial Items

1.0 Basis of Award

1.1 Evaluation Process: Evaluation will be conducted in two distinct Phases:

Phase One: The Government will rate Volume 2, RMF in accordance with paragraph element 2.2.2 and Small Business Participation, paragraph 3.5.

Phase Two: Proposals submitted by qualifying offerors will be evaluated for all remaining factors for Technical, Past Performance and Price.

(a) The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered.: Technical, RMF, Small Business Participation and Past Performance are equally weighted and when combined are significantly more important than Price.

1. Technical

2. Past Performance

3. Small Business Participation

4. Price

(b) Options. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for the five-year ordering period plus the six-month option under clause 52.217-8 authority. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the annual prices are significantly unbalanced.

(c) A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, emailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer’s specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

(d) The Government intends to evaluate proposals and make award without discussions.

However, the Government reserves the right to hold discussions, at the sole discretion of the Source Selection Authority (SSA). The Government will evaluate all proposals in accordance with FAR 15.305(a), and, if discussions are to be conducted, establish the competitive range comprised of all the most highly rated proposals, unless the range is further reduced for purposes of efficiency.

1.0 FACTOR 1 - TECHNICAL EVALUATION.

2.1 The purpose of the technical factor is to assess the offeror’s proposed approach, as detailed in its proposal, to satisfy the Government’s requirements. There are many aspects which may affect a management approach, personnel qualifications, facilities, small business participation and others. The evaluation of risk is related to the technical assessment 2.2.

Risk assesses the degree to which the offeror’s proposed technical approach for the requirements of the solicitation may cause disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. Risk will be assessed as part of the technical factor rating. Any proposal receiving a rating of “Unacceptable” is deemed to have a risk that is so high that award cannot be made against the proposal and the proposal will not be further evaluated.

2.2. A color and adjectival rating will be assigned, in accordance with DoD Source Selection Procedures paragraph 3.1.2.1.1, Table 2A, to evaluate the offeror’s proposed approach and the degree to which it demonstrates an understanding of the requirements through an assessment of the proposal’s significant strength, strengths, deficiencies, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and risk.

2.2.1. Element 1: Technical Approach and Methodology. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed technical approach and methodology for completeness, and to determine the offeror’s understanding of, and ability to successfully accomplish, the requirements of the PWS.

The extent of typographical error will be reviewed as part of this element. Significant weight will be given to the technical approach provided for PWS paragraphs 4.1, 4.3, 4.5, 4.8 and 4.9.

Below for reference is a listing of PWS task areas identified as CORE. All PWS task areas are important; however, for purposes of evaluation CORE task areas are considered more important than non-CORE. See below list:

CORE

2.2.1.1 Career Decision-Making Research: Develop research hypotheses and assist in designing quantitative and qualitative studies grounded in Industrial/Organizational Psychology, and career decision-making theory, theoretical and statistical models, as well as reporting standards to understand factors that influence the decision to join the Military and examine how recruiting related experiences, drivers, and barriers relate to attitudes, experiences, and outcomes later in the personnel lifecycle.

2.2.1.2 Provide a continuous assessment of those factors that predict propensity to join the military and other factors impacting consideration to join the Military (future plans, consideration for joining the Military, military related knowledge, military favorability, engagement in pre-enlistment behaviors and perceptions of the economy, etc.) but will also allow flexibility for new questions and diverse content areas that can be tracked year over year. The model should have a focus on career decision-making theory relating to key drivers of youth and influencer attitudes, behaviors and enlistment decision processes. The questionnaires shall incorporate topics and/or items from previous years’ surveys, input from stakeholders, and important constructs identified by JAMRS or through relevant literature.

2.2.1.3 Using a population frame provided by JAMRS, draw samples of nationally, demographically and geographically representative respondents and conduct mail surveys of youth between the ages of 16-24. The sampling and survey administration methodology shall ensure continued trend lines dating back to the early 1980s on critical metrics like interest (i.e., propensity) to serve in the Military. The sample shall be large enough using stratified sampling techniques so that the data will be weighted to the national population and provide meaningful subgroup estimates with a reasonable standard error estimates.

Specifically, the margin of error should be similar to the average margin of error from the previous two waves and the sample size shall be sufficiently large enough to provide meaningful estimates for race/ethnicity by gender splits per administration and state level estimates on an annual basis. Data weights shall be developed for monthly data sets and reporting, module datasets and reporting and an annual dataset and report.

2.2.1.4 Provide continuous assessment of the impact of recruiting incentives, recruiting programs and policies, compensation and benefits, recruiter interactions, Military Entry Processing Station (MEPS) processing, role of influencers, information sources, outreach/advertising messages and any other factors of interest to JAMRS on actual enlistment decisions. The findings function as an ongoing and continuous census to gauge the effectiveness of programs and practices using immediate feedback from non-prior service enlisted new recruits after taking their oath of service at all 65 MEPS.

2.2.1.5 Periodically, conduct a nationally and demographically representative survey among college-bound, college-enrolled, and recent college graduate youth.

Specifically, experiences surrounding the college and career decision-making process;

knowledge, perceptions, and interest in military officer programs; and background information will be collected with the goal of informing and improving recruiting strategies for military officer training programs. In total, the sample shall include a minimum of 3,000 college market youth

2.2.1.6 Explore, evaluate, and analyze current Defense People Analytics Center (DPAC and Office of People Analytics (OPA) and JAMRS databases within the context of the Military recruiting and personnel life-cycle environment to identify relationships between pre-service entry and in-service variables to determine in-service performance and post-joining outcomes.

2.2.1.7 Services to assess Marketing Effectiveness: Conduct advertising evaluation and performance tracking of three defined nationally and demographically representative target audience segments (Active Duty Youth Prospects aged 16-24; Reserve/Guard Prospects aged 17-35 and Influencers of youth 12 to 24 years of age) gathering daily Joint and Service- specific advertising performance data to continue trend lines on: ad recall, imagery, general brand awareness, advertising awareness (by medium), advertising impact, perceptions of the Military, interest in the Military, likelihood to recommend military service to youth, media usage, and other areas of key interest to JAMRS. The sample shall be national, probability based, random and large enough to conduct data splits for subgroups of interest (race/ethnicity, gender; for influencers the sample must be large enough to provide estimates by moms, dads and grandparents at a minimum.) and provide meaningful standard error estimates. The samples shall be weighted to the national population and weighted on demographic variables such as race, age, gender, education and region.

2.2.1.8 Perform research and continued assessment to define what the Military brand means to youth, understand how the Military brand measures up to youth’s long-term career ambitions and life values, and based on this knowledge develop a youth campaign that aligns the Military’s brand in a position where it can rival other considerations youth are considering when thinking about their long-term career ambitions and life values. A key aspect of this work will be expertise in brand research, brand marketing and brand health assessment.

2.2.1.9 Market Segmentation and Geographic Analysis: Perform market segmentation using commercially available segmentation classifications or custom/in- house segmentation to cluster military recruits into segments based on the characteristics of their households such as socioeconomic status, past military accession behaviors, market conditions life stage, and location. The segmentation classification must be tied to or able to link to geographic areas down to the ZIP code level. The goal of this segmentation is to identify segments that are more or less likely to join the military, assist in developing marketing strategies for different segments, identify potential new markets, and provide customizable reports for locations of interest to the Services.

2.2.1.10 Military Eligibility Research Services: Provide assessments and conduct analyses on eligibility factors impacting youth’s ability to serve in the Military.

2.2.1.11 Recruiter Quality of Life Research: Periodically, conduct a large-scale survey examining military recruiters’ quality of life, mental health, and productivity and the issues that affect their ability to achieve mission goals in order to gain insights on factors that may alleviate work-life balance stressors as well as improve work satisfaction and productivity.

2.2.2. Element 2: RMF. The government will evaluate the BoE artifacts provided for acceptability and compliance in accordance with NIST SP 800-53, NIST SP 800-53A, NIST SP 800 – 171, DFARS 252.239-7009, DFARS 252.239-7010, and DFARS 239.7602-1.

2.2.3. Element 3: Staffing Plan. The Government will evaluate how the offeror’s staffing plan supports their technical approach by reviewing labor categories, experience and skill level of proposed personnel, labor hours, and a crosswalk to the PWS requirements, including the requirements outlined for the first task order in paragraph (2.4.5) below. The Government will also evaluate the offeror's approach for providing IT personnel familiar with protecting PII and providing adequate security in accordance with DFARS 252.204 and NIST.SP.800-171r; and the relevant experience and qualifications for the proposed roles in the staffing plan.

2.2.4. Element 4: Program and Project Management. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s approach for providing complete program management support that will fully integrate, manage, control and document all phases of the contract requirements. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s project management and staffing plans and assess the offeror’s approach for providing the corporate resources necessary to ensure and maintain service quality levels, staffing levels, training, risk management, and the offeror’s plan for the transition-in and transition-out services.

The Government will also evaluate the offeror's approach for instituting and maintaining a capability to ensure the quality and integrity of services/products, including: (1) management and task controls to assure work will be completed as required; (2) contingency plans for identifying and correcting problems; (3) and steps that would be taken to assure timely delivery of quality products

2.2.5 Element 5: Sample Task Order. The offerors sample task order proposal will be evaluated on the technical approach and plan to satisfy all requirements on PWS paragraph 4.0 while adhering to the deliverable requirements in PWS paragraph 5.0 as well as quality requirements in PWS paragraph 6.0.

2.2.6 Element 6: Initial Phase-In, Staffing Transition and Transition Out of services. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s implementation of its initial Phase-In Plan, including timetables and planned efforts to allow for continuity of operations and a smooth transition of work efforts. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s process for recruitment of and in-processing of new employees, including the estimated number of new employees to be in-processed, and plans for current employees performing under the existing contract. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s Initial Phase-In and Transition Out Plans that shall address organizing, planning, , mobilizing and any other information associated with the performance of the services at the start and finish of the basic contract. The Government will evaluate the feasibility of the Staffing Transition Plan and timeline for realism and to determine whether the plan supports a smooth handover. The Government will evaluate risk mitigation strategies in the case where key incumbents are not retained.

2.3. The rating will be a Combined Technical/Risk Rating. The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings. One of the following ratings will be assigned:

COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

Color Rating

Rating Definition

Blue Outstanding Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements, 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 or 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 or 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. Any proposal receiving this rating will not be further evaluated.

3.0. PAST PERFORMANCE (FACTOR 2).

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s past performance information to assess the relevance and quality of past performance in order to assess the probability of the offeror successfully meeting the total requirements as described in the RFP and its attachments. The Government will evaluate past performance that is recent and relevant to the acquisition requirements. Past Performance references that are not determined to be recent (within the last five (5) years of the published date of the solicitation) will not be evaluated. Past performance is an indicator of future performance. The assessment will include performance history of the entire contractor team and will focus on the overall quality of the product/service, adherence to required schedules, conduct of business relations, effectiveness of financial and resource management, and any other additional information pertaining to the performance history.

3.1. Potential sources of performance data are Government sources such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), SAM.gov, Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), questionnaires, and/or non-Government sources, such as commercial past performance references submitted by an offeror.

3.2. References will first be evaluated for recency. Recency refers to the state or quality of being current. The more recent the contract, the greater the likelihood that the offeror has the capacity to perform in a like manner. Recent is defined as performance that has occurred within 5 years from the issue date of RFP. Past performance that is not determined recent, will not be considered.

3.3 Recent references will be evaluated to determine relevancy. Relevance is defined in the following table:

PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

Rating Definition Very Relevant Present/Past performance effort for market research services for a

Commercial or Federal entity; demonstrates similar scale or scope of population experience in 4 of 6 of the CORE requirements of the PWS Section 4.0 (4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.5, 4.8, 4.9, and all subparagraphs); is at a minimum of $500K per year AND the offeror has managed and fully implemented Information System (IS) Processing and Protecting Department of Defense (DoD) Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) and adhering to the security requirements.

Relevant Present/past performance effort for market research services for a Commercial or Federal entity, demonstrates similar scale or scope of population experience in 3 of 6 of the CORE requirements of the PWS Section 4.0 (4.1, 4.2, and 4.3, 4.5, 4.8, 4.9, and all subparagraphs), is at a minimum of $250k per year AND the offeror has managed and fully implemented Information System (IS) Processing and Protection of Information.

Somewhat Relevant

Present/past performance effort for market research services for a Commercial or Federal entity, demonstrates similar scale or scope of population experience in 2 of 6 the CORE requirements of the PWS Section 4.0 (4.1, 4.2, and 4.3, 4.5, 4.8, 4.9, and all subparagraphs), is at any dollar value AND the offeror has managed and fully implemented Information System (IS) Processing and Protection of Information.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort for market research services for a Commercial or Federal entity, demonstrates similar scale or scope of population experience in less than 2 of 6 of the CORE requirements of the PWS Section 4.0 (4.1, 4.2, and 4.3, 4.5, 4.8, 4.9, and all subparagraphs).

3.4 Recent and Relevant past performance will be evaluated and assigned a Confidence Assessment Rating. The Past Performance Evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements, based on past performance information of the prime contractor and proposed subcontractors. The Performance Confidence Assessment rating is assessed as an overall factor after evaluating aspects of the offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the technical factors and cost or price.

One of the following ratings will be assigned at the Past Performance Factor level.

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS RATINGS

Rating Description 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.

3.5. FACTOR 3 SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION

The Government will evaluate the proposal to determine the extent of the Offeror's commitment to Small Business Development. The Small Business Participation Commitment Document will become part of the resultant contract. The Small Business Participation Factor will be rated at the Factor Level, to determine: the extent to which the proposed Small Business Commitment Document provides a detailed and realistic approach to meet or exceed the MQR for small business participation; the extent of the Offeror's commitment to use small business firms, such as teaming agreements, signed letters of commitment (enforceable commitments); the type and complexity of the work the Offeror plans to subcontract; the extent to which the subcontracting plan complies with FAR 52.219-9 (applies to other than small business only).

One of the following ratings will be assigned:

Adjectival Rating Description

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

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

3.6. Price Evaluation. (FACTOR 4) The Price factor will not be assigned an adjectival rating; however, price will be evaluated and determined fair and reasonable. An Optional six (6) month period of performance in accordance with FAR 52.217-8 will be included in the total evaluated price. The total evaluated price will be calculated by adding the total amount of proposed labor with Other Direct Expenses (ODEs), plus half of the offeror’s year four annual contract pricing. The Government will utilize total evaluated price in conjunction with its determination of price as fair and reasonable.

Note 1: The final contract award will be made with a total overall ceiling amount of Not to Exceed $96,557,811.24. The individual CLIN ceilings for CLINs 0001, 0002, 0003, and 0004 will be finalized at time of award.

Note 2: Please note the Government will evaluate transition pricing independently from the total evaluated price. Transition pricing will be determined fair and reasonable and included in the final contract price.

(END OF ADDENDUM TO 52.212-2)