Attachment 3 Section M001.pdf

ATTACHMENT 3

Section M-001

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

International Police Peacekeeping Operations Support

19AQMM24R0052

M.1 GENERAL

This source selection is being conducted as a 100% small business set aside.

M.2 BASIS FOR AWARD

The Government will use the best value–tradeoff source selection process, as defined in Federal

Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.101-1 (Tradeoff Process). Award will be made to the Offeror:

1. Which is deemed responsible;

2. Whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements; and

3. Whose proposal is determined to provide the best value to the Government.

Award will be made to the Offeror that is deemed responsible in accordance with FAR 9.1;

whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements; and whose proposal is determined to provide the best overall value to the Government. The proposal offering the best value is the one that is most advantageous to the Government, when price and other factors are considered. The

Government may select for award the Offeror whose price is not necessarily the lowest, but whose technical proposal is more advantageous to the Government and warrants the additional cost.

The following are the evaluation criteria:

o Non-Cost Factor 1 – Programmatic Approach o Non-Cost Factor 2 – Technical Approach o Non-Cost Factor 3 – Management Approach o Non-Cost Factor 4 – Past Performance o Factor 5 – Price

Non-Cost Factor 1 is of greatest importance and is higher in importance when compared to Non-

Cost Factor 2. Non-Cost Factor 2 is of equal importance when compared to Non-Cost Factor

3. Non-Cost Factor 3 is higher in importance when compared to Non-Cost Factor 4. When combined, all Non-Cost Factors (Technical and Past Performance) are significantly more important when compared to Price. As proposals become more equal in technical merits, price will become more important.

To receive consideration for award, an overall rating of no less than “Some Confidence” must be achieved for Non-Cost Factors 1 through 3. Additionally, award may not be issued to an Offeror receiving an overall Performance Confidence Assessment rating of "No Confidence" for Non-

Cost Factor 4.

The technical proposal evaluation is an assessment of the proposal and the Government’s confidence in the Offeror’s ability to perform the prospective contract successfully. Subjective judgment on the part of the Government is implicit in the technical evaluation process. The

Contracting Officer shall determine what trade-off between non-cost factors and price promises the greatest value to the Government. Therefore, the Government reserves the right to award to other than the lowest offered price, as Technical is rated higher or more important than cost.

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award without discussions with Offerors.

Therefore, the Offeror’s proposal shall contain the Offeror’s best terms from a cost/price and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the

Contracting Officer determines them necessary.

M.3 EVALUATION APPROACH

All proposals shall be subject to evaluation by the Source Selection Team (SST). The

Government reserves the right to reject an offer if the Offeror fails to submit any of the required proposal documents specified in Section L, or the Offeror submits a cost/price proposal that cannot be adequately explained or substantiated.

Terms used to describe an Offeror’s proposal are defined below. These definitions are drawn from FAR Part 15.

Strength: An aspect of the proposal that increases the likelihood of successful contract performance.

Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Deficiency: 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.

Risk: The potential for unsuccessful contract performance. The consideration for risk assesses the degree to which an Offeror’s proposed approach to achieving the technical factor or subfactor may involve risk of disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

Rating Scheme: Each Non-Cost Factor 1-3 will receive a confidence rating and will be evaluated as shown in the table below:

Confidence Ratings & Definitions

High Confidence The Government has high confidence that the Offeror understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, and will be successful in performing the contract with little or no Government intervention.

Some Confidence The Government has some confidence that the Offeror understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, and will be successful in performing the contract with some Government intervention.

Low Confidence The Government has low confidence that the Offeror understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, or will be successful in performing the contract even with Government intervention.

M.4 EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Evaluation of the Offeror’s proposal volumes shall address each Technical Non-Cost Factor

(NCF) as it applies to the requirements set forth in this solicitation. Evaluators will consider the extent to which the Offeror addresses the following Non-Cost Factors from Section L. The

Technical Evaluation Team will document Strengths, Weaknesses, Significant Weaknesses, Deficiencies, and Risks when determining Confidence Ratings for each of the below NCFs:

Phase I, Volume I: Non-Cost Factor 1 – Programmatic Approach: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s technical approach provided for the scenarios described in Section L.8 to determine if it:

• Demonstrates ability to develop and deliver effective training and mentorship content with evidence of successful prior experience. Any prior experience referenced occurred within the past five (5) years of the date of issuance of this solicitation and was similar in scope and complexity to the requirements found in this solicitation’s

Statement of Work (SOW).

• Integrates evidence-based best practice into programming.

• Demonstrates ability to adjust activities based on monitoring data and other feedback.

• Demonstrates knowledge and understanding of UN peacekeeping (both policies and processes).

A confidence rating will be assigned as described in Section M.3 above.

--Advisory down-select notifications will be provided to request Phase II proposals after evaluation is complete of Phase I, Volume I.--

Phase II, Volume II: Non-Cost Factor 2 – Technical Approach: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s technical approach provided for the questions in Section L.10 to determine if it:

• Demonstrates adequate recruitment and retention of proficient mentors/trainers/advisors/technical experts.

• Demonstrates the ability to identify qualified personnel

• Demonstrate ability to maximize the impact of advisors and technical experts.

• Integrate evidence-based best practice into programming.

Phase II, Volume II: Non-Cost Factor 3 – Management Approach: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s management approach provided for the scenario described in Section L.10 to determine if it:

• Demonstrates ability to develop and maintain reliable vendors in multiple challenging environments.

• Demonstrates ability to manage multiple sets of administrative tasks required to deploy staff.

Phase II, Volume III: Non-Cost Factor 4 – Past Performance

The Government will consider the recency and relevancy of the Offeror’s past performance to form a confidence assessment. Recent is defined as current or completed performance within the past five (5) years of the date of issuance of this solicitation. To be relevant, the past performance shall be recent and involve efforts the same as or similar in complexity and scope to those required by this solicitation’s Statement of Work (SOW). . The Government will conduct an evaluation of the past performance information obtained to determine how closely the services performed under those projects relate to the requirements of this solicitation.

The two levels of relevancy are as shown and defined below:

The Performance Confidence Assessment chart below serves as the overall past performance rating. Offerors without a record of recent/relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be assigned reasonably will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive an "Unknown Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor.

PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

Rating Description

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved much of the magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

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

More recent performance shall have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence

Assessment than less recent or relevant efforts. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than an "Unknown

Confidence" rating. Likewise, a more relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance.

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT

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. It is unlikely that

Government intervention will be needed in order to obtain the required product/service.

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. Little Government intervention is expected to be needed in order to obtain the required product/service.

Unknown Confidence (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.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has a low expectation the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Some Government intervention is expected to be needed in order to obtain the required product/service.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, substantial doubt exists that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use information provided in the Offeror’s Past Performance proposal volume and information obtained from other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the

Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), or other databases; interviews with Program

Managers, Contracting Officers and other Government representatives involved in a procurement as necessary; and commercial sources.

Phase II, Volume IV: Factor 5 – Price Proposal

The Government will evaluate the price proposal to ensure that the proposed price is fair and reasonable. The principle manner for evaluating price reasonableness will be price competition. However, the Government may use one or more of the proposal analysis techniques stipulated in FAR 15.404 to conduct the evaluation.

Price is not rated; rather, the principal basis for evaluating price as a factor for award under this solicitation will be an evaluation of the reasonableness of the Offeror’s respective “total evaluated price”, (highlighted in orange) located at the bottom of the of Appendix C, Price

Schedule. The total evaluated price is used as a means for price analysis only, however the labor rates will be fixed for the duration of performance. The Government provided amounts for

Travel and Other Direct Costs (ODCs) shall not be changed and will be included in the total evaluated price.

The Total Evaluated Price will be calculated by including the proposed prices from the base and option periods, inclusive of the Government provided amounts for Travel and ODCs.

The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if escalation rates in performance periods are significantly unbalanced as defined in FAR 15.404-1(g) . Evaluation of Options will be conducted in accordance with FAR part 52.217-5, Evaluation of Options. FAR clause

52.217-8 is included in the solicitation and resultant contract award and will only be exercised if needed not to exceed the contract ceiling. If exercised, the Government will utilize the labor rates from Option Year the proceeds the exercise of FAR 52.217-8. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise any options.

Labor Hour CLINs: The solicitation requires fixed unit prices for each respective labor hour. IAW FAR 15.404-1, a price reasonableness approach will be utilized by the Government to determine that the proposed prices are fair and reasonable and that a “buy-in” or unbalanced pricing between CLINs and performance periods is not occurring. In evaluating price reasonableness, other than pricing data, as described in this price evaluation section, shall be utilized. Indications of potential underbidding or unbalanced pricing will be reflected in the pricing report.

Cost Reimbursable CLINs: IAW FAR 15.404-1, a price reasonableness approach will be utilized by the Government to determine that any proposed indirect rates are fair and reasonable and compliant with the Offeror’s accounting practices.