Attachment 2 Section M.pdf

Management Capacity Study

AOCACB26R0052 – Section M

Section M Evaluation Factors – Step One

PROPOSAL EVALUATION CRITERIA – SOURCE SELECTION PROCEDURES

1.0 Overview

1.1 Basis for Award: This acquisition will utilize a two-step, tradeoff source selection in accordance with AOC Order 34‑1, Section 9.1.2.(a). The Government will conduct a competitive, best-value procurement. Professional judgment is implicit in best‑value tradeoff decisions. Award will be made to the responsible Offeror whose proposal conforms to all requirements and represents the best value to the Government.

1.1.1 Step One:

1.1.1.1 The Government’s determination for an Offeror to progress to Step Two is based on whether the Step One proposal presents itself as among the most qualified under the following equally weighted factors in M.2.0 below.

1.1.1.2 Offerors receiving a Marginal or Unacceptable rating under Factor 1 or Factor 2, or a Low Confidence rating under Factor 3, will not advance to Step Two. The Government may cease evaluation of the remaining Step One factors once an Offeror is eliminated. Offerors eliminated in Step One will not be reconsidered for Step Two under any circumstances.

1.1.2 Step Two:

1.1.2.1 Step Two evaluation is conducted independently of Step One and those evaluation factors will be provided with the issuance of Step Two of the RFP.

1.2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded: The Government intends to award one (1) contract as a result of this solicitation.

1.3 Solicitation Requirements: 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 factors or subfactors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being ineligible for award.

1.4 Proposal Evaluation Approach:

1.4.1 Review all timely proposals for completeness. Offerors shall ensure all requirements in

“Section L – Instructions to Offerors” are followed in exact accordance. Offerors whose proposals do not follow the solicitations may be removed from consideration.

1.4.2 Evaluate all complete, Step One proposals.

1.4.3 Select only the most highly qualified Step One proposals to participate in Step Two. Only

Offerors determined to be among the most highly qualified under Step One will be invited to submit Step Two proposals. The Government may limit the number of Offerors advancing to Step Two.

1.4.4 Inform offerors of those who were selected to participate in Step Two and those who were not selected to participate. Offerors not selected to participate in Step Two will have the opportunity to request a debriefing. Offerors selected to participate in Step Two will be notified of when the Step Two RFIs and proposals are required to be submitted.

1.4.5 Review all timely Step Two proposals for completeness. Step One ratings do not carry forward into Step Two.

1.4.6 Evaluate all complete, Step Two proposals. Offerors shall ensure all requirements in “Section L – Instructions to Offerors” are followed in exact accordance. Offerors whose proposals do not follow the solicitations may be removed from consideration.

1.4.7 Select only the highest qualified Step Two proposals for award. The AOC anticipates awarding one (1) offeror; however, the AOC reserves the right to select more depending on the quality of the offers received.

1.4.8 Inform all Step Two offerors of the AOCs award decision. Those offerors not selected for award will have the opportunity to request a debriefing.

1.5 Technical Ratings/Definitions

1.5.1 The AOC uses an adjectival rating system to evaluate proposals. Each factor will be assigned a rating from the Technical Evaluation. Any factor or assigned an “Marginal” or “Unacceptable” rating will render the entire proposal unacceptable and will be ineligible for award. Step One adjectival ratings apply only to Factors 1 and 2. Past Performance (Factor 3) will use confidence ratings.

1.5.2 Definitions of Strengths, Weaknesses, Significant Weaknesses, and Deficiencies

1.5.2.1 Strength: A feature of the proposal that increases the likelihood of successful performance or demonstrates an aspect that exceeds the minimum requirements in a beneficial manner.

1.5.2.2 Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that reduces the likelihood of successful performance. A weakness may be corrected during discussions, if held.

1.5.2.3 Significant Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that substantially reduces the likelihood of successful performance. A significant weakness is more serious than a normal weakness and may require major revision to correct.

1.5.2.4 Deficiency: A material failure of the proposal to meet a requirement of the solicitation. A deficiency indicates that the proposal is unacceptable as submitted and cannot be made awardable without major revisions.

1.5.3 Adjectival Rating Definitions

1.5.3.1 Outstanding: The proposal provides a very clear, comprehensive, and detailed response that meets all requirements and includes strengths with no deficiencies or significant weaknesses. The risk of unsuccessful performance is very low, as the proposal demonstrates a clear understanding of the requirements and can be expected to result in outstanding performance.

1.5.3.2 Good: The proposal provides a sound response that meets all requirements and may include strengths with no deficiencies and only minor weaknesses. The risk of unsuccessful performance is low, as the proposal demonstrates a solid understanding of the requirements and can be expected to result in satisfactory performance.

1.5.3.3 Acceptable: The proposal meets all requirements and contains both strengths and weaknesses, but no deficiencies. Weaknesses do not outweigh strengths. The risk of unsuccessful performance is moderate, and the proposal demonstrates a general understanding of the requirements that can be expected to result in satisfactory performance.

1.5.3.4 Marginal: The proposal does not fully meet all requirements and includes weaknesses and/or deficiencies. Strengths, if any, are outweighed by weaknesses or deficiencies. The risk of unsuccessful performance is high, as the proposal does not demonstrate an adequate understanding of the requirements and is likely to result in unsatisfactory performance.

1.5.3.5 Unacceptable: The proposal fails to meet one or more requirements and contains deficiencies or significant weaknesses that outweigh any strengths. The risk of unsuccessful performance is very high, as the proposal does not demonstrate an understanding of the requirements and is expected to result in unsatisfactory performance. A proposal rated Unacceptable is not eligible for award.

1.6 Step One Evaluation Criteria. The criteria to be used in assessing the quality of each technical proposal are listed below and are EQUALLY RATED in terms of their level of relative importance.

Price is not evaluated in Step 1. Factors 1–3 in Step One are of equal importance and weight. Step One is intended to identify the most qualified Offerors to advance to Step Two. Price is not evaluated in

Step One.

1.6.1 Factor 1 – Prime Offeror Corporate Experience and Expertise

1.6.1.1 The Government will evaluate the corporate experience and expertise of the prime offeror to determine the extent of their respective experience performing work on relevant projects during the last five (5) years. Relevant projects are those involving managing and providing Program Management Office Design and/or Implementation on contracts similar in scope, size, and complexity during the last five (5) years.

1.6.2 Factor 2 – Key Personnel

1.6.2.1 The Government will evaluate the required information to determine how well the Offeror identifies and demonstrates that its key personnel meet or exceed the experience required by this solicitation. The resumes of your Key Personnel will be evaluated to determine the level of their qualifications and ability to perform the duties required by this solicitation. Each key personnel should indicate the minimum qualifications of Scope of Work Section 13.1 and 13.2 (SOW Attachment 3) to be considered acceptable. Additional consideration will be given to the Offeror whose proposed personnel have the most relevant education, training, and skills. The resume will also be evaluated to determine the extent of successful participation in similar projects within the past five years, taking into consideration the degree of client satisfaction for each project.

Additional consideration will be given to Offerors whose key personnel's relevant experience is extensive and highly successful.

1.6.3 Factor 3 - Prime Offeror Past Performance

1.6.3.1 The Government will evaluate the Prime Offeror’s Past Performance

Questionnaires and/or CPARS received to determine whether and to the extent of which, the offeror has demonstrated a satisfactory record of past performance in those areas identified in the Past Performance Questionnaires and/or CPARS.

The Past Performance reviews will also be evaluated on the offeror’s ability to maintain schedule, forecasting/controlling costs, quality control, handling unusual or unexpected situations, meeting client needs, and the overall customer satisfaction of past projects per the statement of work and project intent. The Government places higher value on projects that document successful outcomes and are supported by outside source confirmation, such as telephone interviews with points of contact identified in the proposal, past performance questionnaires, CPARS, and firm-furnished references. The government may consider the relevancy and currency of the information, the source of the information, and trends in contract performance. Additional consideration may be given for higher performance ratings on more recent and relevant projects.

1.6.4 The Government will evaluate past performance using:

1.6.4.1 Client/agency reference information submitted under Section L Factor 3.

1.6.4.2 Owner‑generated documentation (CPARS, completion letters, private‑sector performance evaluations). Narratives authored by the Offeror will not be evaluated

1.6.4.3 Government knowledge of the Offeror’s performance on AOC or other federal projects.

1.6.5 Recency and Relevancy defined as the following:

1.6.5.1 Recency: Work performed within the last 5 years.

1.6.5.2 Relevancy: Similarity to capital projects requirements.

1.6.6 Confidence Rating Method

1.6.6.1 High Confidence: Documentation shows consistently successful performance on recent, highly relevant work.

1.6.6.2 Some Confidence: Documentation shows generally successful performance with minor issues or limited relevance.

1.6.6.3 Low Confidence: Documentation shows recurring issues, weak performance, safety concerns, or limited relevance.

1.6.6.4 Neutral Confidence: Insufficient relevant past performance information available.

1.6.6.5 Offerors receiving Low Confidence rating under Factor 3 will not advance to Step Two.