Attachment 3 - Evaluation Factors For Award.pdf

HQ085020R0004 Attachment 3 – (Section M)

Attachment 3 - Evaluation Factors for Award

Mission Systems Engineering and Integration (MSEI) Tranche 0

Award

This is a best value tradeoff source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 15.3 and the Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures dated 31 March 2016. The Government will select the most highly rated Offeror representing the overall best value to the Government.

The successful Offeror will need to be deemed responsible in accordance with FAR subpart 9.1, as supplemented by Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and proposals must conform to the solicitation’s requirements to be eligible for award. While the Government strives for maximum objectivity in its evaluations, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective, and, therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

Evaluation Methodology

The following evaluation Factors will be used to evaluate each proposal.

Table 1 – Evaluation Factors

Factors Rating Methodology

Technical Factors Outstanding Good Acceptable Marginal Unacceptable

1 Overall Technical Approach

2 Technical Management

3 Staffing Plan and Personnel

4 Past Performance – Confidence Substantial Satisfactory Neutral Limited None

5 Small Business Participation Acceptable Unacceptable

6 Cost Realism Realistic Unrealistic

Relative Importance of Factors

There are six factors total: Three technical factors, a past performance-confidence factor, a small business participation factor, and a cost realism factor. Factors 1-4 are of equal importance. Factor 5 is less important than Factors 1-4. In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), when combined, Factors 1-5 are significantly more important than Factor 6.

Any Offeror receiving a rating of “unacceptable” on any non-cost factor, or a rating of “unrealistic” on the cost realism factor, will be deemed ineligible for award.

Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government will award one (1) contract and reserves the right to make no award at all.

General Instructions

The Government will evaluate, in accordance with this attachment, information that the Offeror provides in response to Attachment 2 (Section L), Proposal Instructions. Proposals must conform to this Request for Proposal (RFP) and all instructions contained herein. Any submitted proposal that does not adhere to the requirements in this RFP may be eliminated from the competition and become ineligible for award.

Discussions

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and make award without discussions. However, the Government reserves the right to hold discussions if it deems it necessary. Should discussions be held, the Government will make a competitive range determination of the most highly rated proposals based on the ratings of each proposal against all evaluation criteria (FAR 15.306(c)). The Government may request Final Proposal Revisions (FPR) from all Offerors who remain in the competitive range. Any proposal updates shall be evaluated according to the evaluation criteria specified in the sections below.

Solicitation Requirements

Offerors are required to meet or exceed all solicitation requirements, e.g. terms and conditions, small business subcontracting plan submissions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as Factors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the Offeror being ineligible for award. The Government reserves the right to cross-reference between volumes and sections of volumes to support proposal evaluation.

Competitive Range

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and make award without discussions. If it decides to hold discussions, the Government will determine a competitive range in accordance with FAR 15.306(c). If a competitive range is established, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

Evaluation Factors

Evaluation of Factor 1 – Overall Technical Approach

The Government will assess the Offeror’s overall technical approach to performing the mission systems integration and systems engineering functions across the segment deliverables outlined in the Performance Work Statement (PWS). Offerors should demonstrate an understanding of the processes necessary to achieve integration and interoperability of systems and subsystems. Further, Offerors should demonstrate knowledge of the mission domain and how the mission objectives can be achieved through their technical approach. Offerors should demonstrate the practical know-how to integrate systems correctly by demonstrating the use of best practices or “tricks of the trade”, for example; leader-follower relationships, entrance and exit criteria, application of lessons learned from previous programs.

Additionally, the Offeror should enumerate the tools it will use to execute the integration task, to include reach back to corporate resources, processes, and best practices as they apply to this activity.

Evaluation of Factor 2: Technical Management

The Government will assess the Offeror’s plans and approach to management of key tasks and personnel to accomplish the scope outlined in the PWS. The Government will assess how the Offeror outlined processes for data management and configuration management, schedule and variance reporting, critical path analysis, and baseline development and maintenance. The Government will assess the Offeror’s approach to risk management and plans for early identification and mitigation of issues as they emerge. Further, the Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s proposal illustrates budget processes that report on the fiscal health of the program and alert the Government when resources decisions need to be made to preserve program success.

This assessment will include the Offeror’s ability to understand the schedule and associated risks of events necessary to achieve successful integration and operations of the Tranche 0 (T0) mission objectives. The evaluation will be based on the Offeror’s proposed schedule, supporting explanatory text, and narrative presented during the oral portion of proposal. These artifacts will be evaluated on their ability to demonstrate the following competencies:

- Understanding of tasks and activities required to accomplish T0 integration activities

- Sequencing of these tasks and activities

- Identified dependencies and other schedule relationships across all vendors and system providers

- Identification of critical path activities and linkages

- Milestones and other schedule performance criteria to manage progress against the integrated master baseline schedule

Evaluation of Factor 3: Staffing Plan and Personnel

The Government will assess the Offeror’s plan to break out and staff the work outlined in the PWS associated with the technical approach outlined in their proposal technical volumes Ia and Ib. This evaluation will consider the number and type of personnel the Offeror intends to assign to each task and how this distribution reduces risks associated with this work. This evaluation will assess the technical depth and competence of key personnel selected or outlined to accomplish this work. The Government will assess the ability to access key personnel necessary to fill key roles and responsibilities, associated cost elements related to the staffing plan, and the Offeror’s ability to ramp up the staff required to begin this work in a timely manner.

The Government will assign ratings for Factors 1, 2, and 3 as described in Table 2:

Table 2. Technical Factor Ratings

Color Rating Adjectival Rating Description

Outstanding 1. Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements, and

2. Proposal contains a significant strength or multiple strengths/significant strengths, and

3. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Good 1. Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements, and either

a. Proposal contains at least one significant strength, or multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is moderate, or

b. Proposal contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Acceptable 1. Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and

2. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no greater than moderate.

Marginal 1. Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and

2. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable 1. Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation and, contains one of more deficiencies, and/or

2. Risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable.

3. Proposal is Ineligible for award.

The Government will assign significant strengths, strengths, and/or deficiencies, weaknesses, and significant weaknesses to the Offeror’s proposal. Significant strengths, strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies in descending order of a positive evaluation by the Government are defined as follows:

• Significant 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 very advantageous to the Government during 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

• Weakness is a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance

• Significant Weakness is a flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance

• Deficiency is a material failure of an Offeror’s 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

Evaluation of Factor 4: Past Performance

The Government will evaluate Factor 4 based on information provided with the proposal as specified in Section L, Proposal Instructions. It may also use the following sources to evaluate past performance:

• Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS);

• Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS);

• Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS);

• Interviews with Customer Program Managers, Contracting Officers, Fee Determining Officials or other customer personnel fulfilling insight/oversight roles;

• Past performance questionnaires completed by customers from whom the Offeror has received previous contract awards;

• Submitted résumés of proposed Key Personnel.

Relevancy The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s recent (within 5 years) and relevant record of past performance as a means of ascertaining its ability to perform successfully the tasks identified in the PWS. The Government will review recent, relevant performance information obtained to determine whether past performance efforts relate to the scope of activities described in the PWS. The Government may also consider the source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in Offeror’s performance. The relevancy of past performance information will be reviewed as described in Table 3:

Table 3. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Adjectival Rating Description

Very Relevant Past or ongoing efforts performed by most of the same personnel involving the same scope, magnitude, and complexity required to meet the Attachment 1 PWS

Relevant Past or ongoing efforts performed by some of the same personnel involving similar scope, magnitude, and complexity required to meet the Attachment 1 PWS

Somewhat Relevant Past or ongoing efforts performed by a few of the same personnel involving some of the same scope, magnitude, and complexity required to meet the Attachment 1 PWS

Not Relevant Past or ongoing efforts performed by very few or none of the same personnel involving little or none of the scope, magnitude, and complexity required to meet the Attachment 1

PWS

Confidence Pursuant to DFARS 215.305(a)(2), the evaluation will also consider the extent to which the Offeror’s past performance demonstrates compliance with FAR 52.218-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns (if applicable). This quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information that results in an unsatisfactory rating on any formal rating system (e.g.

CPARS) or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. Based on the Government evaluation of relevant and recent past performance, the Offeror will be assigned a Past Performance Confidence rating from the list defined in the Table 4 below. In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the Offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance, but assigned a Neutral Rating.

Table 4. Past Performance Confidence Ratings

Adjectival Rating Description

Substantial 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 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 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 Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

None Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Proposal is ineligible for award

Offerors that receive a Past Performance Confidence rating of None will be ineligible for award.

Evaluation of Factor 5: Cost Realism (Task Order 0001 Only) The Government will assess whether the proposed costs are realistic for the technical and management approach and accurately reflect the goals and objectives of the task order PWS. The proposed costs will be reviewed to determine if they are consistent with the PWS and reflect a sufficient understanding of the costs and level of effort needed to successfully accomplish the proposed approach. The Government will evaluate the costs for the Offeror and proposed subcontractors to determine if they are substantiated by the details provided in the proposal (e.g., the type and number of labor hours proposed per task, the types and quantities of materials, equipment and fabrication costs, travel and any other applicable costs and the basis for the estimates).

The Government may use data external to the Offeror's proposal such as, but not limited to, field pricing reports, industry information, Government estimates, same or similar DoD contracts, and commercial data when evaluating cost reasonableness. Lower reasonable costs will be evaluated more favorably.

Proposals that are determined to be “Not Reasonable” will be Ineligible for award

Evaluation of Factor 6: Small Business Participation The Government will evaluate the extent to which small businesses (to include Service-Disabled, Veteran-Owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, Small Disadvantaged business concerns, and Women-Owned small business concerns) are identified in the Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD). Offerors must meet the minimum quantitative requirement (MQR) of small business participation which is five (5) percent (%) of the total proposed contract value (to include options). The Offeror must clearly articulate this quantitative requirement in the SBP and the cost volume. The Government will assess the Small Business Utilization Plan (SBUP) (if applicable) in accordance with FAR 19.704 and the SBUP must reflect the level of small business participation specified in the SBPCD.

Offeror’s that receive a Factor 6 – Small Business Participation rating of Unacceptable will be Ineligible for award.