Attachment 2 - Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award.docx

Section M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

M.1.1 This is a full and open competition acquisition for a multiple award (MA) Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract award to at least four (4) Offerors, but the Government reserves the right to select more or less than four (4). To increase competition among Small Businesses, the Government will reserve three (3) awards at the Master Contract level for Small Businesses. The awards will be made based on the Highest Technically Rated Offeror (HTRO) approach for proposals that are determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the four (4) evaluation factors: 1) Technical, 2) Past Performance, 3) Small Business Participation Plan, and 4) Cost/Price.

The source selection process for this MA IDIQ is not based on the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LTPA) or Tradeoffs. Within the best value continuum, FAR 15.101 defines best value as using any one or a combination of source selection approaches. This is a Highest Technically Rated Offeror with Reasonable Price (HTRO/RP) source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures, and the Army Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFARS). Offerors are cautioned that awards may be made to the highest technically rated proposals, which are found to have a reasonable price without using trade-offs between cost or price and technical.

HTRO allows award to highly rated technical proposals that are found to have a reasonable price without using trade-offs between cost or price and technical. The Technical factor is of paramount importance and is more important than the Past Performance Factor and Small Business Participation Plan Factor, which are more important than the Cost/Price Factor. To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than “Acceptable” must be achieved for the Technical factor (to include all subfactors). All non-cost evaluation factors, when combined, are significantly more important than cost/price. Note: When using HTRO, the reasonableness of proposed prices is not established by competition, so price analysis or cost analysis (with or without certified cost and pricing data) is required.

It is the intention of the Government to award a MA IDIQ Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) contract with a ceiling of $99,000,000.00. In addition, the Government anticipates task order awards issued concurrently with the base award for selected Offerors for the minimum guarantee of $500.00 each. The order period for this MA IDIQ will be five (5) years from the date of award.

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and make award without discussions. If discussions are to be conducted, a competitive range will be established and comprised of all the most highly technically rated offeror proposals (unless the range is further reduced for purposes of efficiency pursuant to FAR 15.306(c)(2) based on the evaluation criteria identified in Section M of this Request for Proposal (RFP). After completion of discussions with each Offeror in the competitive range (if conducted) and in accordance with FAR 15.307(b), all Offerors in the competitive range will be allowed a specified period to submit Final Proposal Revisions.

The RFP includes a Basic Performance Work Statement (PWS) to include Attachment 7 – Sample Task PWS. Offerors must be able to perform all areas of the PWS and Sample Task PWS to be eligible for award. The expectations are for the Offerors to address company general capabilities to meet MA IDIQ PWS, while using the Sample Task PWS for proposing a technical approach with key skill sets for evaluation. The Sample Task PWS is intended to give an example of potential delivery/task orders that could be derived from the MA IDIQ PWS. It is imperative that Offerors expressly provided that their proposal(s) is valid for a 120-day period after the date of the RFP response date.

M.1.2 Evaluation of all offers will be made in accordance with the criteria outlined in this section. The proposals will be evaluated against the following five (5) factors:

Factor 1 – General (See paragraph M.2)

Factor 2 – Technical (See paragraph M.3)

Factor 3 – Past Performance (See paragraph M.4) Factor 4 – Small Business Participation Plan (See paragraph M.5) Factor 5 – Cost (See paragraph M.6) M.1.3 Awards will be made to Offerors whose proposals are the most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the four (4) evaluation factors. The Technical Factor is the most important factor, and the Past Performance and Small Business Participation Plan Factors are equal in weight and are third most important factors. Cost is the least important factor.

M.1.4 The Government anticipates the selection of four (4) awardees for this MAC IDIQ but reserves the right to select more than or less than four (4). For an Offeror to receive consideration for award, Factor I, General - Two-Step Gate criteria must achieve a ‘Go” before moving to the other evaluation factors. An adjectival rating of no less than “Acceptable” must be achieved for Factor II, Technical, a minimum rating of “Relevant” and “Satisfactory Confidence” must be achieved for Factor III, Past Performance unless a “Neutral Confidence”, is applicable, and “Acceptable” must be achieved for Factor IV, Small Business Participation Plan. (Note: A “Substantial Confidence” or “Satisfactory Confidence” past performance rating is worth more than a “Neutral Confidence” past performance rating.

M.2 FACTOR 1 – GENERAL EVALUATION

The Offeror’s proposal shall address each of the two (2) General subfactors below, M.2.1.1 and M.2.1.2 as they apply to the Entry Gate criteria. Detailed instructions are included in the proposal preparation instructions section (Section L) of this solicitation. During the evaluation of each proposal, the Government will assign a rating of “Go” or “No Go” as depicted in Table 1 below for each subfactor. A rating of “Go” in each of the two-step process for the general subfactor areas will allow an Offeror proposal to receive evaluation for consideration of award. If an Offeror proposal receives a “No Go” in any step of the process, it will be removed from consideration.

Table 1. General Go/No Go Ratings

M.2.1 Description of the General Subfactors: The Government will review the Offeror’s proposal against the following two-step gate criteria. Offerors and team/partner arrangements must meet gate criteria prior to beginning evaluation against the other factors:

M.2.1.1 Subfactor (a): Step One: Gate One: U.S. Owned Entity. This subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s assertion as a U.S. Owned Entity or a Foreign-Owned company granted a National Interest Determination (NID).

Subfactor (a): Step One: Gate One: U.S. Owned Entity

Any proposal received that do not meet the requirement for this gate will not be further evaluated and will not be eligible for award.

After successful validation of Gate One: U.S. Owned Entity Gate, the Offeror’s proposal will move to Step Two.

M.2.1.2 Subfactor (b): Step Two: Gate Two: Facility Clearance Gate. This subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s assertion to have a Top-Secret Level FCL.

Subfactor (b): Step Two: Gate Two: Facility Clearance Gate

L.3.3.2 Offerors (and any team members) shall provide a written statement demonstrating the Offeror is currently approved for a Facility Clearance (FCL) at the minimum of the Top-Secret Level. The Offeror must provide their company name and primary CAGE Code for the government to verify in the NISS showing that they possess an active Top-Secret FCL and documentation safeguarding at the time of proposal submission.

Note: To be eligible as a Joint Venture (JV) Offeror, either (1) the JV Offeror must possess a Top-Secret FCL at the time of proposed submission or (2) each of the entities that make up the JV must individually possess the Top-Secret FCL at the time of proposal submission. The JV itself must be processed for a FCL, even if all JV partners are cleared. The JV must be issued the requisite FCL prior to any task order award.

M.2.1.2 The Government will review the Offeror’s initial proposal for a written statement demonstrating the Offeror (and any teaming partner(s)) is currently approved for a FCL and safeguarding at the Top-Secret Level. The Government will validate the FCL in the appropriate security system.

Any proposal received that does not meet the requirement for this gate will not be further evaluated and will not be eligible for award.

After successful validation of Gate Two: Facility Clearance Gate, the Offeror’s proposal will be further evaluated in the Technical Evaluation.

M.3 FACTOR 2 – TECHNICAL EVALUATION

The Offeror’s proposal shall, at a minimum, address each of the four (4) technical subfactors below M.3.1.1, M.3.1.2, M.3.1.3, and M.3.1.4 as they apply to the Basic Performance Work Statement (PWS) and Sample Task. Detailed instructions are included in the proposal preparation instructions section (Section L) of this solicitation. During evaluation of each proposal’s technical factor rating, the Government will use an adjectival assessment of “Outstanding”, “Good”, “Acceptable”, “Marginal” or “Unacceptable”. The components of each subfactor will be assessed for significant strengths, strengths, significant weaknesses, weaknesses, deficiencies, risks, and uncertainties. Each subfactor will be assigned an adjectival rating of “Outstanding”, “Good”, “Acceptable”, “Marginal”, or “Unacceptable” based upon these collective findings. The compilation of these subfactor adjectival ratings will form the basis of the factor rating. The technical factor ratings, excerpted below, focus on the strengths, deficiencies, weaknesses, risks, and uncertainties of the offeror's proposal. The color rating depicts how the offeror’s proposal meets the technical subfactor requirements.

Table 2: Technical/Management Assessment Ratings

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 level. See FAR 15.001.

Rating is the adjective/color descriptor assigned by the evaluators to the non-Cost/Price Factors. It represents their conclusions as to the quality of the proposal, supported by narrative write-ups identifying the associated strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, and uncertainties. The strengths, weaknesses, etc., are the findings that support the rating adjective/color.

Strength is 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. See FAR 15.001.

Significant Strength is an aspect of an offeror's 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.

Weakness means a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

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

Uncertainty is any aspect of a non-cost factor proposal for which the intent of the offer 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).

Terms and Conditions Concerns are issues related to any of the contract provisions in the solicitation.

M.3.1 This RFP includes a Basic Performance Work Statement (PWS) and a Sample Task PWS (See Attachment 7 in Section J). The Offerors proposal shall be evaluated against the following factors for the Sample Task:

Sample Task

M.3.2 Description of Technical Subfactors: Technical Evaluation Subfactors (a), (b), (c), and (d) are weighted equally. Proposals shall be evaluated against the following subfactor evaluation criteria:

M.3.2.1 Subfactor (a): Understanding of Work to Be Accomplished: This subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s ability to demonstrate an understanding of work to be accomplished to adequately achieve the performance requirements of the PWS and Sample Task PWS. The standard is met when:

Subfactor (a): Understanding of Work to Be Accomplished

M.3.2.2 Subfactor (b): Capability/Approach Methodology for Completion of Tasks. This subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s capability/approach methodology for completion of tasks. The standard is met when:

Subfactor (b): Capability/Approach Methodology for Completion of Tasks

L.4.1.2.5.1 Provide a narrative description of the technical approach for implementation each of the technical requirements defined in the PWS and Sample Task PWS.

M.3.2.2.1 The Government will assess whether the proposed narrative is technically sound and provides an efficient approach to completing the technical requirements defined in the PWS. This includes a discussion of any major problems anticipated in meeting the requirements.

L.4.1.2.5.2 Identify any technical uncertainty and assumptions within the requirements as well as specific approaches for the resolution of these uncertainties.

M.3.2.2.2 The Government will assess whether the proposed approach identifies risks and technical uncertainty along with providing efforts to mitigate risks (e.g., software, processes, etc.).

M.3.2.3 Subfactor (c): Quality Assurance Procedures. This subfactor assesses the Offeror’s Quality Control (QC) and Quality Assurance (QA) procedures to ensure proper oversight for personnel, training, facilities, equipment, supplies, services, and subcontractors. The Quality Control Plan (QCP) submitted in response to this subfactor shall address performance standards and control of information. In addition, the QCP shall define approaches and processes to effectively measure, track, analyze, report, and implement corrective actions. The standard is met when:

Subfactor (c): Quality Assurance Procedures

M.3.2.4 Subfactor (d) – Management. This subfactor assesses the Offeror’s program management procedures to ensure schedule (multiple tasks and deliverables) and performance goals of both prime and subcontractors (if applicable) are achievable. There are three (3) elements: Element (a) – Approach/Plan, Element (b) – Personnel Security Clearance (PCL), and Element (c) – Personnel.

M.3.2.4.1 Subfactor (d) Management – Element (a) – Approach/Plan. This element of Management assesses the Offeror’s concept, management strategy, and organizational approach to achieve performance goals and performance attributes of the PWS. The standard is met when:

Element (a): Approach/Plan

L.4.1.2.8.7 Demonstrate a hiring/retention plan. Describe procedures for recruiting, vetting, preparing, hiring, replacement, and retention of all personnel to ensure the appropriate background, knowledge, and skills for the performance of this MAC IDIQ.

M.3.2.4.1.7 The Offeror describes a hiring/retention plan that details the procedures for recruiting, vetting, preparing, hiring, replacement, and retention of personnel to ensure appropriate background, knowledge, and skills for the performance of this MA IDIQ. The Government will assess whether the proposed plan demonstrates a successful approach to ensuring personnel with the required skillset and knowledge are available to perform the requirement.

M.3.2.4.2 Subfactor (d) – Management – Element (b) – Personnel Security Clearance (PCL). This element of Management assesses the Offeror’s ability to provided U.S. citizen employees who require access to classified information. The standard is met when:

Element (b): Personnel Security Clearance (PCL)

M.3.2.4.3 Subfactor (d) – Management – Element (c) – Personnel. This element of Management assesses the Offeror’s qualifications and experience that demonstrates the ability to successfully lead and manage a research, development, test, and evaluation organization commensurate with their proposal roles (labor basis of estimate). The standard is met when:

Element (c): Personnel Qualifications/Experience

M.4 FACTOR 3 – PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s record of past and current performance to ascertain the probability of successfully performing the required efforts of this solicitation.

M.4.1 Attributes of Past Performance Evaluation. This assessment is based on the Offeror’s record of recent and relevant past performance information that pertain to the services outlined in the solicitation requirements. There are two (2) aspects to the past performance evaluation: 1) determining whether the Offeror’s recent past performance is relevant or not relevant to this effort; and 2) determining how well the contractor performed on the recent contracts determined to be relevant to this effort. The past performance evaluation performed in support of this source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and/or history of the Offeror’s past performance on past contracts. Rather, it gathers information from customers to enable the evaluators to assess how well the Offeror performed on those contracts.

M.4.2 Past Performance Evaluation Procedures M.4.2.1 The Government will seek relevant performance information from: (i) past and present efforts provided by the Offeror (using questionnaires, which are forwarded by the Offeror to the Offeror’s selected sources), and (ii) data independently obtained from other Government sources. The past performance evaluation will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to the instant acquisition. The past performance evaluation may also consider the past performance of affiliated companies or operating divisions within the parent company or joint ventures of the parent company when it is reasonable to attribute the experience of these past efforts to the proposed effort and when the proposal clearly demonstrates the resources (e.g., financial resources, overall oversight and management or other resources) of the parent or affiliated division will meaningfully affect performance of the instant acquisition. The past performance of teaming partners or subcontractors who are proposed to perform less than 20% of the work and are not proposed to perform critical aspects will not be evaluated.

M.4.2.2 Recency. Recent contracts are those in which the Offeror has performed within the previous three (3) years of the date of issuance of this solicitation. In order to be considered “recent” for the purpose of this evaluation, current programs must have at least one (1) year of documented performance during the three (3) year period. Contract performance that meets these criteria will be evaluated in their entirety, regardless of the total length of the contract. Contract performance that does not meet these criteria will not be evaluated.

M.4.2.2 Relevancy. The Government will evaluate relevancy of the Offeror’s past performance and assign ratings of “Very Relevant”, “Relevant”, “Somewhat Relevant”, or “Not Relevant”. Evaluators will determine relevancy of the Offeror’s recent past performance by comparing those efforts to the current requirement with respect to scope, magnitude, and complexity. Specifically, evaluators will review type of service provided, total contract value, duration of contract, and contract type of the contracts reviewed. The Government will assign relevancy ratings to each contract reference using the descriptions in Table 3 below:

Table 3: Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

M.4.2.3 Quality Assessment. Assess the quality of the Offeror’s past performance on these recent efforts that were determined relevant by determining how well the contractor performed on the contracts. Documented results from Past Performance Questionnaires, interviews, Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and other sources from the support and basis for this assessment. The past performance evaluation team will review all past performance information as it applies to the requirements of this solicitation.

M.4.2.4 Performance Confidence Assessment. The final step is for the team to arrive at a single consensus performance confidence assessment for the offeror, selecting the most appropriate rating from the chart below. This rating considers the assessed quality of the relevant/recent efforts gathered. Ensure the rationale for the conclusions reached are included. The Government will assign an overall “Substantial Confidence”, Satisfactory Confidence”, Limited Confidence”, “No Confidence”, and “Unknown Confidence (Neutral)” past performance rating based on the evaluator’s assessments of the Offeror’s past performance data, as depicted in Table 4 below:

Table 4: Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method

The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

M.5 FACTOR 4 – SMALL BUSINESS PARTCIPATION PLAN EVALUATION

All offerors (both other than small businesses and small businesses) will be evaluated on the extent of proposed participation/commitment to use of U.S. small businesses in the performance of this acquisition (as small business prime offerors or small business subcontractors) relative to the objectives and requirements established herein. The Government will evaluate the following to determine if the offeror met or exceeded the requirements.

1. The extent of Small Business participation (SB Prime & SB Subcontracting) beyond the government’s stated minimum quantitative reserve of 10% of Total Contract Value (i.e., binding commitments will become enforceable/contractual requirements).

2. The extent to which firms as defined in FAR Part 19, are specifically identified in proposal.

3. The extent to which offerors demonstrate substantive commitment to small business firms, such as, letters of commitment, Joint Ventures, mentor/protégé agreements, or other demonstrations of commitment (i.e., binding commitments will become enforceable/contractual requirements).

4. Identification of the type and variety of the work small firms are to perform (i.e., binding commitments will become enforceable/contractual requirements).

5. The extent to which the offeror provides detailed explanation/documentation supporting the proposed quantitative participation.

6. Extent to which the offeror complied with requirements of FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns (i.e., binding commitments will become enforceable/contractual requirements).

7. Extent to which the offeror complied with requirements of FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan (when applicable) (i.e., binding commitments will become enforceable/contractual requirements).

The Government will evaluate the proposal to determine which offerors propose the best value in terms of Small Business Participation. The work to be performed directly by a small business prime offeror will also be evaluated as Small Business Participation. The Small Business Participation Commitment Document (See Attachment 3 within Section J) will become part of the resultant contract.

M.5.1 The following rating definitions will be utilized in the evaluation of the Small Business Participation factor as depicted in Table 5 below:

Table 5: Small Business Rating Method

M.6 FACTOR 5 – COST EVALUATION

The Government will evaluate the cost information submitted in each Offeror’s cost proposal as described below. The Offeror shall provide a full cost proposal based on the Sample Task (See Attachment 7 Section J). Any other data provided by the Offeror with their cost proposal that is not required by Section L will not be considered.

M.6.1 Cost Reasonableness. The Government will determine cost reasonableness by using the Highest Technically Rated Offeror (HTRO) approach, the reasonableness of proposed prices is not established by competition, so price analysis or cost analysis (with or without certified cost and pricing data) is required. The Government will also evaluate cost realism of the Offeror’s proposal in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(d) to determine the probable cost of performance. The probable cost may differ from the proposed and should reflect the Government’s best estimate of the cost of any contract that is most likely to result from the Offeror’s proposal. Should the Government determine proposed costs are unrealistically low (an indication of “buy-in”), this will be considered a performance risk.

M.6.1.1 In accordance with FAR 15.404-1(d), the Government will evaluate the cost realism of the Offeror’s proposed cost for each task order effort through a probable cost analysis. This analysis will be an independent review and evaluation of specific elements of each Offeror’s proposed cost estimate to determine whether the estimated proposed cost elements are realistic for the work to be performed; reflect a clear understanding of the requirements; and are consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the Offeror’s technical proposal. The probable cost will be determined by adjusting each Offeror’s proposed cost and fee when appropriate to reflect any additions or reductions in cost elements to realistic levels based on the results of the cost realism analysis. If the Government’s evaluated cost is less than the proposed, the proposed cost will become the probable cost.

M.6.1.1.1 The offeror’s proposed rates, factors, and expenses will be examined to substantiate utilization of consistent forward-pricing procedures, i.e., negotiated forward-pricing rates, if applicable, or rates and factors contractors ordinarily utilize in proposals if no negotiated forward-pricing agreement exists. This includes indirect expense rates, projected rates, and projected expense pools.

M.6.1.1.2 The rates and factors shall then be applied to the quantitative and qualitative analyses of the labor hours, travel, and other direct cost factors which shall be proposed to accomplish the required efforts for the base effort and all options.

M.6.1.1.3 Probable cost shall include a consideration of the evaluated quantitative and qualitative proposal in relation to the costs proposed against that resource mix. Probable cost shall include a comparison of proposed rates with factors, as determined by the Government to be equitable. These factors shall include wage determinations included in this RFP as well as proposed professional compensation plans and average salary/wage rates. The comparison serves as a basis for determining the amount of risk inherent in an offeror’s proposal.

M.6.1.1.4 The offeror shall ensure that a complete breakdown of costs is provided by major subcontractors and joint venture partners. Major subcontractors and joint venture partners are defined as members of an Offeror’s overall team who are expected to perform twenty (20) percent or more of the proposed effort. A complete evaluation of probable cost will be performed in the same manner as the Offeror’s as defined in paragraphs M.6.1.1.1, M.6.1.1.2, M.6.1.1.3 and this paragraph.

M.6.2 The Government will not award a contract to an offeror whose proposed cost is determined to be unreasonable or unrealistic. In accordance with FAR 15.403-1(b), certified cost or pricing data is not required. Additionally, the Government will evaluate the realism of the offeror’s proposed costs in relation to the offeror’s technical approach. The Offeror’s proposed cost will be evaluated by determining what the Government predicts the offer’s approach would most probably cost the Government when the work performed under the contract is completed. To the degree that the Government’s most probable cost estimate exceeds the offeror’s proposed cost, the cost will be adjusted upward for the purposed of evaluation only.