Attachment 11_Section M_Evaluation Factors for Award.pdf

Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award

1. Best Value Introduction:

1.1. This section outlines the criteria the Government will use in evaluating the Offeror’s capabilities and proposal for the Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) Processing, Exploitation and Dissemination (PED) support services contract. The Government will compare each Offeror’s proposal elements against the predetermined evaluation criteria related to the Government’s requirement defined herein. This is a competitive, best value, trade-off process, source selection that will be conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15.101-1 and 15.3 and Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Part 215.

1.2. The Government will evaluate all proposals received against General and Administrative Qualifying Criteria (Factor 1). Those that “pass” the General and Administrative Qualifying Criteria evaluation will then be evaluated against Transition Plan (Factor 2), Corporate Experience and Management (Factor 3), Past Performance (Factor 4), and Price (Factor 5). All General and Administrative Qualifying Criteria are evaluated on a pass or fail basis. A Combined Technical/Risk Rating will be used to evaluate Factor 2 Transition Plan, Factor 3 Corporate Experience and Management. The Factor 4 Past Performance will be evaluated using recent and relevant past performance. The Factor 5 Price Factor will not be given a color rating or scored, but rather, be evaluated to determine if the price is fair and reasonable.

1.3. Factor Evaluation Matrix:

Evaluation Item Factors Evaluation General & Administrative Qualifying Criteria Factor 1 Pass/Fail Transition Plan Factor 2 Combined Technical/Risk Rating Corporate Experience and Management Factor 3 Combined Technical/Risk Rating Past Performance Factor 4 Recent/Relevant Past Performance Price Factor 5 Total Evaluated Price

1.4. Evaluation Scales

1.4.1. Factor 1 Evaluation Scale:

1.4.1.1. The General Administrative and Qualifying Criteria (Factor 1). Factor 1 will be evaluated based on the following rating scale:

Rating Description

Pass Proposal meets all stated requirements for this factor.

Fail Proposal fails to meet all stated requirements for this factor.

1.4.1.2. The Transition Plan (Factor 2) and Corporate Experience and Management (Factor 3). Factors 2 and 3 will be evaluated based on the following rating scale.

Color Rating

Adjectival Rating

Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, 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, 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/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal can’t be awarded.

1.4.1.2.1. Deficiencies and weaknesses, referred to in above descriptions ratings, are defined as set forth shown in the Evaluation Findings Table below. This is a combined Technical/Risk rating. As such, the level of risk to unsuccessful performance will be assigned per the color rating definitions contained within the above table, and not given a separate rating. For example, a proposal can be low risk and still receive a purple or green rating; or a proposal may have multiple strengths, but be assessed to have high risk resulting in a yellow rating. The Transition Plan (Factor 2) and Corporate Experience and Management (Factor 3) will be evaluated based upon the following evaluation finding definitions:

Evaluation Findings Definitions

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.

Weakness Means a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Risk

As it pertains to source selection, risk is the potential for unsuccessful contract performance. The consideration of risk assesses the degree to which an Offeror’s proposed approach to achieve the technical factor or subfactor may involve risk of disruption of schedule or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

Strength Is 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.

1.5. Relative Order of Importance:

1.5.1. Per FAR 15.304(d), the evaluation factors’ relative order of importance are as follows:

1.5.1.1. If a proposal received a rating of “Pass” Factor 1 – General and Administrative Qualifying Criteria; Tradeoffs will be accomplished between Non-Price Factors and Price.

1.5.1.2. Factors are listed in descending order of importance.

1.5.1.2.1. Factor 2 – Transition Plan

1.5.1.2.2. Factor 3 – Corporate Experience and Management

1.5.1.2.3. Factor 4 – Past Performance

1.5.1.2.4. Factor 5 - Price

1.5.1.2. Factor 2 Transition Plan is “significantly more important” than Factor 3 Corporate Experience and Management. All evaluation Factors, other than Price, when combined, are “significantly more important” than Price. It should be noted that as proposals approach equality across the non-price factors; the Price factor plays a more important role in the Best Value Award Decision.

1.6. Basis for Award:

1.6.1. To arrive at a source selection decision, the Source Selection Authority (SSA) will perform an integrated assessment using the evaluation factors described here within Section M. Per FAR 15.101-1, this may result in award being made to the higher rated, potentially higher priced Offeror(s). Alternatively, award may be made to a lower rated, lower priced Offeror where the benefits of the higher rated Offeror are not determined to be worth the higher price.

1.7. Number of Contractors to be selected:

1.7.1. The Government anticipates selecting one (1) Contractor for the – ISR PED IV Contract.

1.8. Rejection of Unrealistic Offers:

1.8.1. The Government may reject any proposal that is assessed to be unrealistic in terms of program commitments, including contract terms and conditions, unreasonably high or unrealistically low, in price when compared to Government estimates, such that, the proposal is deemed to reflect of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program.

1.9. Proposal Evaluation:

1.9.1. Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to, those identified as areas or factors to be eligible for award. Failure to comply with the solicitation’s terms and conditions may result in the Offeror being removed from award consideration. Any solicitation’s terms and conditions exceptions must be fully explained and justified, even then, an Offeror may still be removed from award consideration.

1.10. Award without Discussions. The Government intends to award without discussions.

Therefore, each initial proposal should contain the Offeror's best terms from a price, technical, and past performance standpoint. The Government may make a final determination as to whether the Offeror's proposals meets the minimum requirements solely on the basis of the evaluation of the initial proposal as submitted.

1.11. Offer Acceptance:

1.11.1. 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, will result in a binding contract without further action by either party unless a written notice of withdrawal is received from the Offeror before award.

1.12. Disqualification:

1.12.1. The term disqualification as used in this solicitation means that the Offeror is no longer considered for award. If an Offeror is disqualified in accordance with the criteria spelled out in this solicitation, their proposal will not be evaluated, and they are ineligible for contract award.

2. Factor 1 General and Administrative Qualifying Criteria (Volume 1):

2.1. Information submitted for the qualifying criteria per Section L will be evaluated to determine if the proposal meets Volume 1 definitions in order to “pass.” The Offerors will be assessed as passed if Volume 1 requirements are met. In the event an Offeror fails to meet any of the requirements, the proposal will not be evaluated further and the offer will be eliminated from further award consideration.

2.2. Contract Forms and Certifications:

2.2.1. Section 2 - SF33, Solicitation/Contract/Order and SF30s, Amendment of Solicitation/Modification of Contract Documents. Offerors will complete Blocks 12, 13, 14, 15A-15C, 16, 17, and 18. The Offeror’s signature must be from an individual authorized to negotiate on behalf of the Offeror.

2.3. Section 3 - Facility Clearance:

2.3.1. The Prime Offeror must have a Top Secret Facility Clearance, as accredited by the National Industrial Security System (NISS), at the time of proposal submission.

3. Factor 2 Transition Plan (Volume 2):

3.1. Under this Factor, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to providing sound business practices, processes, and expertise in the management approach to transition personnel from an incumbent contract to the prime Offeror’s contract with a minimum of degradation in service to the Government. This transition plan will become part of any resultant contract award as an attachment.

3.1.1. The Offeror will address its capability to execute a phase-in/transition leading to assumption of full contractual responsibility no later than 90 days after contract award. Offerors who exhibit a fully integrated transition schedule that by labor category and location, exceed the minimum FTE requirement, and do so to a greater degree (i.e. up to the full FTE requirement) will potentially receive a more favorable evaluation. Offerors who exhibit a transition schedule that does not allow adequate time for contingencies in the transition and on-boarding process may be assigned risk. No strengths will be awarded for an Offeror’s transition plan that exceeds the Government’s planned 45 day transition.

3.1.2. The Offeror’s plan that provides a detailed approach to accomplish a timely transition by describing its ability to manage, deploy, and transition the requirement from the incumbent vendor to the successful Offeror. The Offeror’s plan to meet all requirements of the transition to include security, procedures and policies, risk mitigation techniques, flexibility, and logistics.

Details include the logistics of moving the Offeror’s personnel into both CONUS locations, and assuming control of the Government’s requirement for real time geospatial analysis support to USSOCOM elements. The Offeror will address the relationship between the Transition Manager and Program Manager throughout the transition processes and the roles and responsibilities of each. A transition plan based upon previous successful corporate experience of similar size/scope will potentially obtain a more favorable evaluation than a transition plan submitted by an Offeror with no/limited previous corporate experience transitioning an effort of this size/magnitude.

3.1.3. A Transition Plan that demonstrates the ability to recruit new personnel, if the Offeror is unable to capture incumbents, will potentially receive a more favorable evaluation than a transition plan that heavily relies solely on incumbent capture without demonstrating its ability to recruit new personnel.

3.1.4. The Offeror’s plan to accomplish succession from incumbent Contractor performance (including plans, if any, to assimilate the incumbent’s workforce) to Offeror performance will be evaluated for feasibility and potential impact on mission continuity. A transition plan that is based upon three (3) previous successful corporate experience accomplishing succession of performance from a legacy contractor and assimilating incumbent employees into its operations will potentially obtain a more favorable evaluation than a transition plan submitted by an Offeror with no/limited previous corporate experience.

3.1.5. A Transition Plan that demonstrates and describes the Offeror’s ability to assimilate and begin the SOF FMV PED Course within 15 days of award will potentially receive a more favorable evaluation than a transition plan that takes longer to assimilate the training course.

Inherent in the training course is an offeror provided facility sufficient to meet the objectives of the course as discussed in PWS, paragraph 8.1.

3.1.6. The Key Personnel required and submitted within Volume 2 will be evaluated within Factor 2 (Transition Plan) to the extent in which the resumes submitted for the Key Personnel SOFARS 5652.237-9001 demonstrate that they do not meet, meet or exceed the minimum qualifications, certifications, education, years of experience, and support within SOF Communities, Conventional Forces, or Commercial Industry as specified in the requisite SOW paragraphs. Letters of Commitment with at least 12 months of commitment from full performance start date (post-transition) are desirable. A commitment by the Transition Manager to fulfill the entire performance period for this position is desirable.

4. Factor 3 Corporate Experience and Management (Volume 2):

4.1. Under this Factor, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s demonstrated corporate experience in providing similar services, and the extent to which the Offeror’s Management structure demonstrates clearly defined responsibilities and sound business management practices and processes to meet the organizations requirements as defined in Section L. The Government will further evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s corporate experience in implementing management plans of similar size and scope, informs their understanding of how the required personnel support the mission and enhances risk mitigation strategies to successfully execute contract performance. Under Factor 3, the Government will evaluate:

4.1.1. Whether the Offeror’s Management Plan demonstrates verifiable and successful experience in providing intelligence/geospatial analytic support services of a similar size and scope. Plans that incorporate demonstrated, successful, and direct corporate experience in staffing ISR projects of a similar size and scope across the personnel category descriptions in PWS, Paragraph 6, will receive a more-favorable rating. Offerors with current experience, over longer periods of performance will potentially be more favorably evaluated.

4.1.2. Whether the Offeror’s Management Plan demonstrates verifiable and successful experience in providing intelligence/geospatial analytic support services as a Prime managing subcontractor(s). Plans that incorporate demonstrated previous successful corporate experience performing as a Prime managing subcontractor(s) in support of Intelligence/Geospatial Analysis projects of a similar size and scope will receive a more-favorable rating. Offerors with current experience, over longer periods of performance will potentially be more favorably evaluated.

Whether the subcontractor management approach is efficient and modular/flat. A plan that demonstrates a higher confidence of achieving this will receive a more favorable evaluation.

4.1.3. Whether the Offeror’s Management Plan demonstrates verifiable and successful previous corporate experience in hiring, recruiting, retaining, and marketing for Intelligence/Geospatial Analysts in support of similar-sized Government requirements. Plans that incorporate demonstrated, successful, and direct previous corporate experience in effective recruitment and retention of all labor categories, with TS/SCI clearances, for projects of a similar size and scope will receive a more-favorable rating. Offerors with current experience, over longer periods of performance will potentially be more favorably evaluated.

4.1.4. Whether the management plan demonstrates the ability of the Prime Contractor to rapidly expand operations to support the magnitude and complexities of this effort.

4.1.5. Whether the management plan demonstrates the process for training new personnel.

4.1.6. The capability of the Offeror’s proposed procedures to minimize impact on continuity of operations due to turnover (e.g., termination, sickness, retirement). How the Total Compensation Plan (Volume 4) will detract or enhance the Offeror’s ability to minimize turnover and recruit new personnel will be considered.

4.1.7. The Key Personnel required and submitted will be evaluated within Factor 3 (Corporate Experience and Management) to the extent in which the resumes submitted for the Key Personnel in SOFARS 5652.237-9001 demonstrate that they do not meet, meet or exceed the minimum qualifications, certifications, education, years of experience, and support within SOF Communities, Conventional Forces, or Commercial Industry as specified in the requisite PWS paragraphs. Letters of Commitment with at least 12 months of commitment from full performance start date (post-transition) are desirable.

4.1.8. The Total Compensation Plan required and submitted will be evaluated within Factor 3 (Corporate Experience and Management) to the extent the plan reflects a sound management approach and understanding of the contract requirements. This evaluation will include a risk assessment of the Offeror's ability to provide uninterrupted high-quality work. The professional compensation proposed will be considered in terms of its impact upon recruiting and retention, its realism, and its consistency with a total plan for compensation. This risk assessment will be a component of the overall Government’s factor risk evaluation.

5. Factor 4 Past Performance (Volume 3):

5.1. Past Performance Evaluation. The Government will evaluate past performance.

5.2. The past performance evaluation factor assesses the degree of confidence the Government has in an offeror's ability to perform the required services, based on the offeror's demonstrated record of performance. As such, the Government will assess the offeror's probability of meeting the solicitation requirements based on the offeror's demonstrated present and past performance record. The Government will evaluate the offeror's/joint members,' and if applicable, any proposed teaming subcontractors' demonstrated record of contract compliance in supplying services that meet users' needs. The recency and relevancy of the information, the source of the information, context of the data and general trends in the contractor's performance will be considered. The past performance evaluation is subjective, and as stated previously, the Government will use professional judgement the source selection process.

5.3. Joint Venture. If an offeror is a joint venture (JV) with no past performance information, the past performance record of all companies performing the JV will be considered and the past performance section must contain references from each company forming the JV. If the JV company, as the offeror, has a past performance record, the past performance record of the JV company will be considered for evaluation purposes. If the JV company has less than three (3) past performance records for the offeror, the past performance records of the individual companies comprising the JV will be considered to make up the minimum number of three (3) past performance references for the offeror.

5.4. Mentor Protege. If an offeror is a Mentor Protege (MP) participant with no past performance information, the past performance record of the mentor will only be considered if the mentor is either a teaming partner/subcontractor or part of the JV submitting a proposal as identified in the Offeror Summary Table in Volume I.

5.5. Past Performance Evaluation Process. The Past Performance evaluation considers the offeror's past and present work record that is recent and relevant to this acquisition to assess the Government's confidence in the offeror's ability to successfully perform as proposed.

Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level after aspects of the offeror's present and recent performance records are evaluated.

5.6. The Government will evaluate the recency, relevancy and quality of offerors' submitted past performance information, past performance questionnaires received and other past performance information data independently obtained from other Government and commercial sources to include, but not limited to: the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS); Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), other databases or systems, Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), interviews with program managers and contracting officers, and any other sources.

The past performance evaluation will include verification of dates of service for recency and type of work for relevancy. The past performance evaluation does not establish, create, or change the existing record or history of an offeror's performance on past or present contracts, rather the past performance evaluation gathers information from customers on how well the offeror performed those contacts.

5.7. Recency Assessment. An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. Recent contracts are defined as contracts or task orders where services were performed, or are still being performed, within three (3) years of the issue date of this solicitation. In addition, a current effort must be ongoing for at least six (6) months prior to the date of issuance of this solicitation. A completed effort must be performed during the past three

(3) years with at least six (6) months of that effort performed within three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated. The Government reserves the right to consider any recent present/past performance after the solicitation closing date and prior to award.

5.8. Relevancy Assessment. The government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent current and past performance obtained to determine how closely the services performed under those contracts most closely resemble the scope, magnitude and complexity of this solicitation.

Scope considers the number and types of aircrew and support labor categories provided.

Magnitude considers the overall dollar value of the effort. Complexity considers who the services were provided for and the number of required sorties flown monthly during the period of performance. Relevancy, as it pertains to present/past performance information, is a measure of the extent of similarity between the service effort, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and subcontract/teaming or other comparable attributes of present/past performance.

5.8.1. For this requirement, relevant contracts are defined as work that the Offeror has performed as either a prime or major subcontractor that included all of the following service elements:

5.8.1.1. Recruited, qualified, managed and retained intelligence analysts consisting of 15 or more full time equivalent (FTE) positions

5.8.2. The offeror need not have performed all of these services on a single contract or task order (singular effort) to be determined relevant. However, past performance on contracts or task orders involving some or all of these service elements in a singular effort would be more relevant than those that did not.

5.8.3. Degrees of relevancy will be assessed for present/past performance using the criteria outlined in Table M-3 below.

5.8.4. Consideration will be given to the business relationship between the offeror and teaming partners and subcontractors listed on the Offeror Summary Table (Volume I). Teams that have demonstrated successful performance together in the past will be considered more relevant than a contract performed by the Offeror alone, subcontractor alone or either with different teaming partners and subcontractors. The past performance information and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance.

5.8.5. A more relevant past performance record will be weighted more heavily than a less relevant performance record. Greater relevance generally will be assigned past performance that includes a larger number of aircrew and support staffing, followed by work performed for relevant clients (e.g. DoD) followed by dollar value of existing aircrew and support staffing contracts. The government will use the degrees of relevancy in Table M-3, Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method when assessing relevancy ratings to contract references.

Rating Definition Very Relevant (VR) Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant (R) Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant (SR) Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant (NR) Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

5.9. Performance Confidence Assessment. After evaluating recency and relevancy, past performance will be evaluated for quality and assigned one of the following performance confidence assessment ratings in Table M-4 below. Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings reflect the Government's confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the solicitation's requirements based on the Offeror's recent and relevant past performance record.

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.

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.

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.

5.9.1. In the case of an Offeror without a record of recent relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown or neutral past performance.

5.10. Adverse Past Performance. Offerors will be given an opportunity to address adverse past performance information if the Offeror, joint venture member and/or critical subcontractor has not had a previous opportunity to respond to the information. The past performance evaluation assessment will consider issues including but not limited to the number and severity of the problems, the appropriateness and/or effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised), and the overall work record. Prompt corrective action in isolated instances may not outweigh overall negative trends.

6. Factor 5 Price Evaluation (Volume 4):

6.1. Price proposals will be evaluated for Completeness, Balance, and Reasonableness.

6.2. Completeness. The price proposal will be reviewed for completeness and to determine the extent to which all the price elements have been addressed in compliance with Section C, paragraphs 5.0 through 5.5.4 of Section L of the solicitation.

6.3. The Total Proposed Price and Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be calculated for each offer.

6.3.1. Total Proposed Price. The Total Proposed Price will be calculated using the prices proposed on the Price Worksheet (Attachment 7 to this solicitation) for all five years of the period of performance. Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) quantities identified will be multiplied by unit prices to confirm the extended price. Then the extended price for all CLINS will be added together for a total for that specific performance period. The total for all performance periods will be added together to calculate the total proposed price.

6.3.1.1. All unit and extended prices provided shall be rounded to no more than two positions after the decimal point. Unit prices shall be used in the event that extended prices are calculated incorrectly.

6.3.2. Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

6.3.2.1. The TEP for each offeror will be calculated automatically within Attachment 7 by averaging the proposed rates for each labor category and Expanded Work Week for each calendar year. The total of all averages will be summed to determine the offeror’s Total Evaluated Price for evaluation purposes only. The TEP will not be included in the total contract award. The total price calculated for FBLR See Project will be used to award the first task order thus fulfilling the minimum guarantee amount of the IDIQ Contract.

6.4. Balanced pricing. Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one (1) or more contract line items is significantly over or understated. Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and could result in payment of unreasonably high prices. The Government will analyze offers to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to separately priced line items or sub-line items. An offer that is determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

6.5. Reasonableness. For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. The Government will determine prices fair and reasonable through the use of one or more of the price analysis techniques in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b)(2). A determination of unreasonably high TEP may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from the competition.