Attachment 5 Section M Evaluation Factors for Award 14 May 2020.pdf

FA8201-20-R-0007 Hill AFB Information Technology Consolidated Contract (ITCC)

Attachment 5 Section M Evaluation Factors for Award

Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award

Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 EVALUATION – COMMERCIAL ITEMS

The following addendum replaces FAR provision 52.212-2 in its entirety.

1 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD THROUGH SOURCE SELECTION

1.1 Source Selection Methodology

This acquisition will utilize the Tradeoff source selection procedures in accordance with FAR

15.3 as supplemented by the DoD Source Selection Procedures referenced in DFARS 215.300 and Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS) Mandatory Procedures

5315.3 to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. These regulations are available electronically at acquisition.gov. In using the best value approach, the Government seeks to award to the offeror who gives the Air Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet or exceed the Information Technology Consolidated Contract (ITCC) contract requirements, in a way that will be the most advantageous to the Government. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher Total Evaluated Price (TEP) offeror where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the technical superiority and/or overall business approach of the higher priced offeror is determined to be of the best value to the Government. To arrive at a best value decision, the SSA will integrate the source selection team’s evaluations of the factors and subfactors described in this document. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the tradeoff process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the selection process. Offerors are reminded that the Government will only evaluate one proposal from each offeror.

1.2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to select one contractor for this effort; however, the Government reserves the right to award no contract at all, depending on the quality of the proposals and prices submitted and the availability of funds.

1.3 Correction Potential of Proposals

The Government may consider, throughout the evaluation, the “correction potential” of any proposal. The judgment of such “correction potential” is within the sole discretion of the

Government. If an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal not meeting the Government’s requirements is not considered easily correctable within the Government’s time constraints, the Offeror may be eliminated from the competition in accordance with (IAW) FAR 15.306(c).

Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal conforms to all required terms and conditions, includes all required representations and certifications, meets or exceeds all requirements set forth in the RFP, and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation as described in Section 2 below.

1.4 Discussions

The offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussions. The government intends to award without discussions. However, the Government reserves the right, if it is determined to be in its best interest, to hold discussions. Offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Request for

Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. If the

Offeror’s proposal remains in the competitive range at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the FPR are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the

Offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award or may affect the offeror’s ratings.

2 FACTOR AND SUBFACTORS USED FOR EVALUATION

A detailed and complete analysis of each offeror’s proposal will be performed. Award will be made to the offeror with the proposal that is the best value to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below.

Factor 1: Technical

Subfactor One: Help Desk Surge Scenario

Subfactor Two: Help Desk Surge and Cross-Utilization

Subfactor Three: CST Support

Subfactor Four: Corporate Experience

Subfactor Five: Server Support

Factor 2: Price

2.1 Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors

IAW FAR 15.304(e), Technical, which includes the combined technical/technical risk rating is significantly more important than price. However, price will contribute to the source selection decision. Within Factor 1, subfactors one and two are most important. Subfactors three, four, and five are less important than one and two.

2.2 Technical Assessment

The evaluation of the technical proposal includes risk associated with the technical approach in a single rating, Combined Technical/Technical Risk Rating. The combined technical/technical risk rating includes consideration of proposal risk in conjunction with the strengths and weaknesses, defined below:

Strength: 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.

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. (See FAR 15.001)

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

(See FAR 15.001)

Significant Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. (See FAR 15.001)

Technical Risk Description:

Adjectival Rating Description

Low Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s approach and capabilities explanation and how they will use their approach and capabilities to accomplish/satisfy requirements, and not merely restate requirements. Offerors are informed that performance or capabilities proposed above mandatory minimums may be incorporated into the contract.

2.3 Combined Technical/Technical Risk Rating

The technical rating evaluates the quality of the offeror’s technical solution for meeting the

Government’s requirement. Technical risk, which is manifested by the identification of weaknesses, assesses the degree to which an offeror’s proposed approach for the requirements of the solicitation may cause disruption of schedule, increased costs, degraded performance, the need for increased government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. The evaluation shall address the Source Selection Team’s identification of any weakness as well as the offeror’s identified risks and proposed mitigation (if applicable) and document why that is or is not manageable.

Each Technical subfactor identified above will receive one of the color ratings described in the

DoD Source Selection Procedures excerpted below, which focuses on the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies of the offeror's proposal. The color rating depicts how well the offeror’s proposal meets the Technical subfactor requirements. Subfactor ratings shall not be rolled up into an overall color rating for the Technical factor.

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 is unawardable.

2.4 VOLUME I, FACTOR ONE: Technical

The technical volume shall be evaluated to determine the degree to which the offeror provides a sound, compliant approach that meets the requirements of the PWS and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements and their associated risks. The technical proposal addresses each of the following subfactors in sufficient detail. For each subfactor, the offeror identifies risks, if any, associated with the proposed approach and actions the offeror will take to mitigate the identified risks. If no risks/mitigations are identified in the offeror’s proposal, it indicates the offeror does not consider there to be any risk associated with their proposed approach.

As part of Volume I, the Government will evaluate the following Five Technical subfactors:

Subfactor One: Help Desk Surge Scenario

Subfactor Two: Help Desk Surge and Cross-Utilization

Subfactor Three: CST Support

Subfactor Four: Corporate Experience

Subfactor Five: Server Support

2.4.1 Subfactor One: Help Desk Surge Scenario

This subfactor will evaluate the offeror’s response for the scenario in Section L, paragraph 2.3.1. Ratings for this subfactor will be assigned for the degree to which the proposal demonstrates a mature and complete methodology to manage a surge with the goal of satisfying service levels in accordance with the metrics in PWS section 1.3.4.2.

2.4.2 Subfactor Two: Help Desk Surge and Cross-Utilization

This subfactor is rated to the degree to which the offeror demonstrates the ability to effectively identify Help Desk surges, maintain Help Desk surge capabilities, and cross utilize personnel during these events while maintaining the performance metrics in PWS section 1.3.4.

2.4.3 Subfactor Three: CST Support

This subfactor is rated to the degree to which the offeror demonstrates the capability to effectively provide the following to support NIPR and SIPR end devices in accordance with the CST requirements and metrics in PWS 1.3.1, 1.3.2, 1.3.3:

2.4.3.1 Equipment moves

2.4.3.2 Repair of end device hardware or software malfunctions

2.4.3.3 Installation of new hardware or software

2.4.3.4 Resolution of network connectivity issues

2.4.4 Subfactor Four: Corporate Experience

This subfactor is rated to the degree to which the offeror provides current or past example(s) of contracts that show total users equal to Hill AFB and performance lasted up to (4) years.

The rating will be based on the degree to which the contract examples are relevant to requirements of this solicitation as listed below;

2.4.4.1 Client Support, PWS 1.3

2.4.4.1.1 Help Desk Support, PWS 1.3.4

2.4.4.1.2 Printer Support, PWS 1.3.5

2.4.4.1.3 End Devices, PWS 1.3.1

2.4.4.1.4 eTool devices, PWS 1.3.2

2.4.4.1.5 TAA devices, PWS 1.3.3

2.4.4.2 Expeditor Support, PWS 1.3.6

2.4.4.3 Server Administration, PWS 1.4

2.4.4.4 Network Support, PWS 1.5

2.4.4.5 Unit Software Support, PWS 1.6

2.4.5 Subfactor Five: Server Support

This subfactor is rated to the degree to which the offeror’s described approach, processes, and any specific software tools demonstrates the capability to effectively and efficiently support discovery, management, remediation, documentation, and mitigation of vulnerabilities of multiple physical and virtual servers running Windows Server OS and

Red Hat Linux OS.

3 VOLUME II, FACTOR TWO: PRICE

The criteria used for evaluation of the Price Factor will be Completeness, Reasonableness, Balance, and Total Evaluated Price (TEP). The TEP will be a consideration in the best value award decision. The TEP will be computed and provided to the Source Selection Authority for award purposes only and does not become part of the contract at award. However, the rates proposed in the TEP Matrix used to calculate the TEP will become contractually binding.

3.1 Completeness

The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated for compliance with Section L and all other portions of the Request for Proposal (RFP). The offeror shall ensure that they have provided all requested pricing information.

3.2 Reasonableness

The determination of reasonableness will consist of reviewing all the proposed CLINs. All

CLINs will be reviewed for reasonableness IAW the techniques described in FAR 15.404-1.

Generally adequate price competition is sufficient to satisfy the requirement for ensuring reasonableness. For a price to be considered reasonable, it must represent a price to the

Government that a prudent person would pay when consideration is given to prices in the market and its affordability. If adequate price competition is not obtained or if reasonableness cannot be determined, additional information will be required to support the proposed price.

3.3 Balance

The Government shall analyze offers to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to labor rates and TEP. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one or more labor rate is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of analysis techniques such as those defined by FAR Part 15.404-1. Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the

Government.

3.4 Total Evaluated Price (TEP) Matrix, Section J Attachment 3

The TEP will consist of the cumulative value for all CLINs excluding 0011 (CDRLs – NSP).

The minimum guaranteed order will be issued under CLIN 0012 (Phase-in/Transition). The minimum guaranteed order will be for a Post Award Conference with delivery of CDRL A004

Saftey Program Plan. The TEP for CLIN 0012 Post Award Conference will be evaluated as

$1,000 for all offerors. The TEP for CLINs 0001 through 0010 will be calculated by applying notional hours to a predetermined mix of labor categories across all task order price years. The sum of these notional hours applied to the offeror’s proposed labor rates for each labor category will determine TEP. Notional hours will be for Government evaluation purposes only and will

NOT be disclosed to offerors. The TEP is for evaluation purposes only; however, all proposed rates are contractually binding as Not-to-Exceed rates. A no bid or an omitted rate may result in an incomplete Price Volume submission. An omitted rate may result in proposal elimination.

3.4.1 Labor Rates

Labor Rates will be established for pricing all future contractual modifications/Task Orders.

Fully burdened labor rates include direct labor rates, indirect rates, (Overhead, General and

Administrative, Fringe Benefits, etc.) and profit.

3.4.2 Unacceptable Technical Subfactors

If at any time during the evaluation the Government finds a technical subfactor to be unacceptable, the evaluation of pricing will reflect, "Not Determined" for Reasonableness and

Balance due to the offeror's price not reflecting an acceptable technical approach. The

Government may also decline to consider the offeror's TEP for purposes of competitive range or award if the offeror has any unacceptable rating.

4 VOLUME III: CONTRACT DOCUMENTATION

The Government will reviewed the completeness and correctness of the offeror’s contract documentation submission as part of Volume III. The offeror’s proposal shall include a signed copy of the Solicitation, Sections A through K, signed amendments to the solicitation (if any), and all other information required in Section L Instruction to Offerors. An incomplete package may exclude the offeror from competition.

4.1 Limitations on Subcontracting

The Government will review subcontracting documentation to ensure it demonstrates how the prime contractor will meet the requirements IAW 13 CFR 125.1 and 125.6 Prime Contractor’s

Limitations on Subcontracting (1) in the case of a contract for services (except construction), it will not pay more than 50% of the amount paid by the government to its firms that are not similarly situated. Any work that a similarly situated subcontractor further subcontracts will count towards the 50% subcontract amount that cannot be exceeded. Other direct costs may be excluded to the extent they are not the principal purpose of the acquisition and the small business concerns to not provide the service such as airline travel, worked performed by transportation or disposal entity, under a contract assigned the environmental remediation NAICS code 562910, cloud computing services, or mass media services.

4.2 Professional Employee Compensation Plan

In accordance with FAR 52.222-46, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Professional

Employee Compensation Plan to ensure that it reflects a sound management approach and understanding of the contract requirements and allows the Offeror to obtain and keep suitably qualified personnel to meet mission objectives. Base labor rates, fringe and overall benefits will be evaluated and compared against current standards. Lowered compensation for essentially the same professional work may impair the Offeror’s ability to attract and retain competent professional service employees. This may be viewed as evidence of failure to comprehend the complexity of the contract requirements which may lead to rejection of the proposal.

5 SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS

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.

5.1 Exceptions to Solicitation Requirements

Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale.