Attachment 6 - CyOFTS III Section M 23Apr25.pdf

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Cyber Operations Formal Training Support (CyOFTS) III

1.0. Source Selection (SS)

1.1. Basis for Contract Award

This competitive 8(a) small business set-aside acquisition will utilize tradeoff source selection procedures for a best value award decision. Award will be made to the Offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 9, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L

– Instructions to Offerors of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors, to represent the best value to the Government. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced Offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines the technically acceptable proposal, and superior past performance of the higher priced Offeror outweighs the price difference with lower priced Offerors.

1.1.1. The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation (described below). While the Government Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the Source Selection process, by its nature, is subjective and, therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

1.1.2. This source selection is conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15.3, Contracting by Negotiation, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), the Department of the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DAFFARS), DoD Source Selection Procedures 20 August 2022, and Air Force Mandatory Procedures 5315.3. These regulations are available electronically at https://www.acquisition.gov.

1.2. Number of Contracts to be Awarded:

The Government intends to select one contractor for this acquisition. However, the Government reserves the right not to award a contract at all, depending on the quality of the proposals and prices submitted and/or the availability of funds.

1.3. Correction Potential of Proposals:

The Government will consider throughout the evaluation, the correction potential of any technical proposal aspect evaluated as a deficiency. The correction potential shall be based on the amount and/or complexity of the corrections needed to meet Government requirements.

1.4. Competitive Range Determination

If discussions are conducted, the Government shall establish a competitive range comprised of the most highly rated proposals, in accordance with FAR 15.306(c). During the evaluation process multiple competitive range determinations may be made that eliminate Offerors from the competition IAW FAR 15.505. The competitive range determination can be based on Factor 1 Technical, Factor 2 Past Performance, Factor 3 Price, or a combination of the three factors. A http://www.acquisition.gov/ competitive range determination may eliminate Offerors based on their initial proposal evaluation results, after discussions (if necessary), prior to issuance of the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) request, or for efficiency. If Offerors are excluded from the competitive range they may request a debriefing IAW FAR 15.505.

1.6. Discussions

The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if necessary. Therefore, it is imperative that Offerors submit their best terms initially.

However, if during the evaluation period it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, the Government will determine if responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) received during discussions will be considered formal proposal revisions, or if offerors will be required to include EN responses in the Final Proposal Revision (FPR). The Request for FPR letter will include specific instructions on how offerors will submit FPRs. The Government also reserves the right to request Draft FPRs during discussions. Offeror responses to ENs for Volume II (Past Performance) shall not be included in the FPR. Offeror responses to Past Performance ENs during discussions will automatically be considered in the final evaluation.

1.7 Solicitation Requirements (Terms and Conditions)

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and Performance Work Statement (PWS) requirements, in addition to those identified as factors and subfactors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the Offeror being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions unacceptable, and the proposal, therefore, ineligible for award.

2.0. Evaluation Factors

2.1. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

2.1.1. Evaluation factors used to evaluate each proposal:

Award will be made to the offeror proposing the combination of factors deemed most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors described below.

Factor 1: Technical Subfactor 1: Facility Security Clearance Subfactor 2: Management Plan/Staffing Plan

Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Price

2.1.2. Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors:

For this solicitation, technical acceptability is a prerequisite to the best value analysis and potential tradeoff between Past Performance and Price. The Order of Importance is used to explain how the other factors will be traded off on technically acceptable proposals.

For all technically acceptable proposals, Factor 2 (Past Performance), is considered significantly more important than Factor 3 (Price).

2.1.3. Evaluation Methodology:

The Government will initially evaluate Technical Subfactor 1, Facility Security Clearance.

Offerors who are determined as “meets the requirements” in Subfactor 1, will be considered Acceptable for Subfactor 1 and eligible for the remainder of the evaluation for Subfactor 2, Factor 2 Past Performance, Factor 3 Price and Contract Documentation. Offerors who fail to meet the requirements of Subfactor 1 will be determined as “does not meet the requirements” in Subfactor 1 and will be documented as having a deficiency in Subfactor 1. For this acquisition, a deficiency is defined as a material failure of a proposal to meet a government requirement. In this instance the Government will document the deficiency, and the Offeror will not be provided an opportunity to correct any deficiency in Subfactor 1 as part of discussions. The Offeror will be determined Technically Unacceptable in Factor 1, which will thus make the Offeror ineligible for award. The Government will not evaluate the remainder of the Offeror’s proposal for Subfactor 2, Factor 2 Past Performance, Factor 3 Price or Contract Documentation. In instances where an Offeror fails to provide the required documentation for Subfactor 1, the Offeror will be evaluated using the same methodology for “does not meet the requirements” for Subfactor 1 as described above. At the conclusion of the initial evaluation, in the event the Government conducts an award without discussions, Offerors who are determined Unacceptable for Subfactor 1, based on any identified deficiency, will be unawardable. In the event the Government determines it cannot award without discussions, Offerors with a deficiency in Subfactor 1 will be excluded from the Competitive Range. Subfactor 1 is a prerequisite in order to proceed to the evaluation of Subfactor 2, Factor 2 Past Performance, Factor 3 Price and Contract Documentation.

For Offerors who are determined as “meets requirements” for Subfactor 1, the Government will evaluate all remaining subfactors and factors concurrently for all proposals. Initial ratings for all factors will be established for each Offeror in determining the competitive range. The government technical evaluation team will evaluate the technical proposals on a pass/fail basis, assigning ratings of Acceptable or Unacceptable. The proposals shall be evaluated against the subfactor criteria listed in paragraph 2.2 and its subparagraphs below. Past Performance will be evaluated as described in paragraph 2.3 and subparagraphs below. Price will be evaluated as described in paragraph 2.5 and subparagraphs below. For the award decision, the SSA will assess the Past Performance ratings, along with supporting information, and Price for all technically acceptable offers to make an integrated assessment of which Offeror provides the overall best value.

2.2. Factor 1 – Technical

The technical evaluation will be based on each Offeror’s approach for meeting the technical requirements listed below. The evaluation focuses on the technical approach as described in each offeror’s technical volume. The technical evaluation does not consider price. The subfactor within the technical factor will receive one of the ratings described below based on the criteria listed below. Individual subfactor ratings will be used to determine the overall technical acceptability of each Offeror. To be determined technically acceptable at the factor level, the Offeror must be rated acceptable in the subfactor. A single deficiency within the subfactor will result in an unacceptable rating for the subfactor. A final unacceptable subfactor assessment will determine an overall technical unacceptable rating, and, therefore, unawardable. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially, or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. The technical evaluation will also consider risk in determining overall acceptability. Risk pertains to the potential for unsuccessful contract performance. Risk will not receive a separate rating, rather, it will be inherent within the subfactor ratings, and the overall technical rating.

The rating definitions for Subfactors 1 and 2 are as follows:

Table 2.2.1 Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method

Rating Description Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

2.2.1. Subfactor 1 – Facility Security Clearance

The Government will assess the Offeror’s facility security clearance requirements. Offerors are required to provide all applicable information as stated in the ITO, Section L, Technical Subfactor 1, paragraph 3.1.2.1.a. To be acceptable, the Offeror must provide convincing rationale that the proposed facility security clearance will meet all requirements, as follows:

a. For Offerors proposing as a joint venture (JV) without its own facility clearance (FCL), the Government will review the Offeror’s provided Security Plan/Standard Operating Procedure information to ensure the Offeror’s proposing JV and its members will have the ability to access the facility where performance will occur, assume contract tasks and responsibilities and be able to begin performance under applicable task orders.

Additionally, the Government will review the following:

1) A self-certifying statement which contains the Offeror’s name, applicable cage code and FCL equal to the requirement on the DD Form 254, Contract Security Classification Specification (RFP Attachment 2) without additional authorization (i.e. National Interest Determination (NID) by the proposal due date.

2) A current and valid screenshot from the National Industrial Security System (NISS) showing the Offeror’s FCL equal to the highest classification specification as described in the DD 254 (RFP Attachment 2), which ensures the Offeror’s ability to access the facility where performance will occur, assume contract tasks and responsibilities and be able to begin performance under applicable task orders.

In addition to the Government’s review of the provided NISS screenshot and the Offeror’s self-certifying statement, the Government will also independently review the DCSA website to validate the information provided is correct and unaltered.

2.2.2. Subfactor 2: Management Plan/Staffing Plan

a. This subfactor is met when the Offeror demonstrates an acceptable management/staffing approach that explains how it will meet the PWS requirements and the appendices. The approach shall meet the following criteria (do not include employee names or resumes):

i. An acceptable organizational structure to include a completed CyOFTS III Labor

Matrix that provides certified personnel resources, including any subcontracting and teaming arrangements. The organizational structure shall adequately demonstrate the labor categories, position descriptions, security clearances, number of fully qualified positions available on day one and minimum acceptable qualifications necessary to meet the requirements identified in the PWS Table C.1.

ii. An acceptable methodology for recruiting, training, accession and retention of certified personnel, training, obtaining/maintaining personnel clearances and certifications. Methodology adequately addresses continuity of service during personnel absences due to sickness, leave and vacancies, surge and emergencies such that the 39 IOS mission is not impacted. PWS 2.5.12, PWS 2.5.12, 7.5.1.7, 7.5.3.

iii. A transition phase-in approach that ensures continuity of services and a smooth effective transition where they have the ability to be fully staffed and ready to begin performance on the first day of the period of performance after the transition period is complete. PWS 2.12.2, 2.12.3 and 2.12.4.

2.3. Factor 2 – Past Performance:

The Past Performance evaluation assesses the degree of confidence the Government has in an Offeror’s ability to supply products and services that meet users’ needs, including cost and schedule, based on a demonstrated record of performance.

2.3.1. Ratings:

The Past Performance factor will receive one of the following performance confidence assessment ratings IAW the Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures.

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

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.

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.

NEUTRAL

CONFIDENCE

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 CONFIDENCE

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

Note: With regards to the best value award decision, all offerors rated as “Substantial Confidence” will be considered equal for the Past Performance Factor.

2.3.2. Evaluation Process:

The Past Performance evaluation considers the Offeror’s demonstrated record of performance in providing products and services that meet users’ needs. Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the Offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the technical subfactors and Price assessment. More relevant performance may have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less relevant effort. More recent performance may have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less recent performance. The Government may consider past performance in the aggregate in addition to on an individual contract basis. In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the Offeror’s Past Performance proposal volume and information obtained from other sources, such as, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) or similar systems, Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) and commercial sources. The Government reserves the right to use all information available to fully assess the Offeror’s past performance.

2.3.2.1. Recency Assessment:

An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be on going or must have been performed during the past five (5) years from the date of issuance of this RFP. PPI that fails to meet this condition will not be evaluated.

2.3.2.2. Relevancy Assessment:

The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the products provided/services performed under those contracts relate to the Technical subfactors and Price assessment. Relevancy will be rated at the total contract level for each PPI. Consideration will be given to things such as similar service, similar complexity of the effort, breadth and depth of skills, similar contract scope and type, contract magnitude and schedule. A relevancy determination of the Offeror’s past performance will be made, including JV partner(s) and subcontractor(s). In determining relevancy for the individual contract references, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the Offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The Government will consider the portion of the effort accomplished on the previous/current contracts compared to the portion to be performed on the proposed effort.

The Government will use the following degrees of relevancy when assessing recent, relevant contracts:

Degree Description

NO CONFIDENCE

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

VERY RELEVANT

(VR)

Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

RELEVANT

(R)

Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

SOMEWHAT RELEVANT

(SR)

Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

NOT RELEVANT

(NR)

Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Scope, magnitude and complexity will be assessed based on the prime or subcontractor/teaming partners proposed role or effort as it relates to the past performance effort. The Government may or may not utilize all or some of the following to determine the elements examined within scope, magnitude, complexity, and price:

Scope: Relevancy in regard to scope may be assessed based on, but not limited to, the similarities between a given Past Performance effort and the CyOFTS III requirement.

1. Instructional Systems Development (ISD) (PWS 1.3.4, 3.2.2.4, 3.2.6.6, 3.3.2.4, 3.3.6.4, 3.4.2.4, 3.4.6.4, 3.5.2.4, 3.5.6.5)

2. Client System Support and System Administration (PWS 3.6.10 and 3.6.11)

3. Network Engineering (PWS 3.6.7)

4. Network Administration (PWS 3.6.6)

Magnitude: Relevancy in regard to magnitude may be assessed based on, but not limited to, the similarities between a given Past Performance effort and the proposed requirement.

Consideration may be given to the following elements when determining relevancy with regard to magnitude:

1. Contract value as it relates to the portion of effort proposed to perform.

NOTE: Past Performance efforts that are valued less than $50M for total contract value will be determined not relevant, and therefore, will not be considered in the Government’s evaluation.

Complexity: Relevancy in regard to complexity may be assessed based on, but not limited to, the similarities between a given Past Performance effort and the technical subfactor.

1. Cybersecurity Support (PWS 3.6.14, 3.6.15, 3.6.16)

2. Planning and Project Management (PWS 3.6.23)

3. Web Developer (PWS 3.6.17)

4. DevOps Engineering (PWS 3.6.17)

5. Audio Visual Systems Support (PWS 3.6.8 and 3.6.9)

6. Senior Software Engineering (PWS 3.6.20)

7. Boundary Protection Engineering (PWS 3.6.21)

Price Assessment Past Performance Relevancy: Relevancy in regard to cost/price will be assessed primarily based on similarity between contract type (i.e. Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP), Cost, Time and Materials (T&M)) of previous effort as compared to the CyOFTS III requirement.)

2.3.2.3. Performance Quality Assessment:

The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts. The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of the past performance questionnaire responses, PPIRS information, Contractor Performance Assessment Reports (CPARS) (including ratings and supporting narratives), interviews with Government customers and fee determining officials and, if applicable, commercial clients. It may include interviews with DCMA officials or other sources known to the Government. The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information which the Government determines to be less than satisfactory performance quality. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements when determining the quality assessment. Taking mitigating corrective actions may or may not result in a higher quality rating. The Government will use the following quality levels when assessing recent, relevant efforts:

Quality Assessment Description

EXCEPTIONAL (E)

(BLUE)

During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeding (or exceeded) some or many. Very few, if any, minor problems encountered. Contractor took immediate and effective corrective action.

SATISFACTORY (S)

(GREEN)

During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements. For any problems encountered, contractor took effective corrective action.

MARGINAL (M)

(YELLOW)

During the contract period, contractor performance is not meeting (or did not meet) some contract requirements. For problems encountered, corrective action appeared only marginally effective, not effective, or not fully implemented. Customer involvement was required.

UNSATISFACTORY (U)

(RED)

During the contract period, contractor performance is failing (or fail) to meet most contract requirements. Serious problems encountered. Corrective actions were either ineffective or non-existent. Extensive customer oversight and involvement was required.

UNKNOWN (UK)

Unknown performance rating due to lack of sufficient information to assign a rating.

2.3.3. Assigning Ratings:

As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating based on the definitions provided in paragraph 2.3.1 above. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the Technical subfactors and Price assessment, the resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance. Offerors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive a "Neutral Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor.

More relevant performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less relevant performance. A record of Somewhat Relevant to Very Relevant past performance, which may result in Substantial, Satisfactory, or Limited Confidence, may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a Neutral 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.

2.4. Factor 3 –Price

Price proposals will be evaluated for (1) price reasonableness (2) completeness, (3) unbalanced pricing, and technically acceptable proposals will be evaluated for (4) Price Realism limited to the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) and specified LCATs. Offerors whose price is determined to be incomplete, unreasonable or unrealistic will not be considered for award. Additionally, an offeror’s price may be rejected, if it contains unbalanced pricing to the extent it poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

The Government will evaluate the TEP of proposals that meet the Facility Security Clearance requirements in Factor 1, Subfactor 1. The Offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated based upon the TEP, calculated Attachment 4, Pricing Matrix. The TEP will be calculated as the sum of the Offeror’s proposed price calculations as computed in accordance with the detailed methodology in this section. The TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only. NOTE: Evaluation of options or extensions does not obligate the Government to exercise such options or extensions.

The Government shall evaluate for realism the TEP of offerors who are determined to have technically acceptable proposals. This TEP price rollup is based on the specific CLIN calculation methodology provided below. These calculations will include all evaluation periods: the Transition Period, the Basic Period, all Ordering Periods, and the 6 month Extension Period. The Extension Period is in accordance with FAR clause 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services. The Offeror’s price proposal will be based on the prices proposed in Attachment 4, Pricing Matrix.

The Government shall evaluate the realism of individual direct labor base rates in technically acceptable proposals for the LCATs specified in Section L 5.1.4.1 submitted in Pricing Matrix (RFP Attachment 4). It is the Offeror’s responsibility to ensure the accuracy of calculations and formulas in the proposal. For the purposes of comparability within this evaluation, the direct labor base rates proposed by all offerors should be the annual salary divided by 1872 hours.

2.4.1. Price Reasonableness

The proposed prices will be evaluated for reasonableness. Analysis of price proposals will be performed using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404-1(b)(2) in order to determine price reasonableness. Reasonableness must represent a price to the Government a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. Normally, price reasonableness is established through adequate price competition but may also be determined through price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404-1(b)(2). The Government may also use other techniques as needed.

2.4.2. Completeness

The proposed prices will be evaluated for completeness. Incomplete proposals will be considered unawardable. To evaluate completeness, the Government will confirm all unit prices and rates in the Pricing Matrix (RFP Attachment 4) have a dollar amount, as applicable.

2.4.3. Unbalanced Pricing

Offerors’ proposals will be reviewed for unbalanced pricing in accordance with FAR 15.404- 1(g). An offer may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

2.4.4. Price Realism Limited to the TEP and Specific LCATs

For technically acceptable proposals only, the Offeror’s proposed TEP and base direct labor rates for specified LCATs, as identified in Section L, para 5.1.4.1, will be evaluated for price realism.

To be realistic, the TEP and specific LCATs must demonstrate an adequate understanding of and consistency with the requirement and must ensure the TEP and specific LCAT rates do not pose an unacceptable risk to performance. For the purposes of comparability within this evaluation, the base direct labor rates proposed by all offerors should be the annual salary divided by 1872 hours.

For all technically acceptable proposals, the Government intends to perform this limited price realism evaluation by calculating the mean and standard deviation of the total evaluated prices (TEPs) and the mean and standard deviation of the proposed base direct labor rates for each specified LCAT. Technically acceptable proposals with a TEP that falls more than one (1) standard deviation below the mean of TEPs for all technically acceptable proposals will be considered unrealistically low and un-awardable. Technically acceptable proposals with base direct labor rates in the specified LCATs that fall more than one (1) standard deviation below the mean of all technically acceptable proposal base direct labor rates within that LCAT will be considered unrealistically low and un-awardable.

If an Offeror’s TEP and the base direct labor rates for specified LCATs are higher than 1 standard deviation below the mean of all technically acceptable proposals, and the labor categories and FTE counts proposed in the price proposal match the labor categories and FTE counts shown in the technical proposal, the Government will determine that the TEP is realistic and reflects a clear understanding of the PWS requirements.

The Government expects adequate competition to use this evaluation methodology but reserves the right to evaluate realism utilizing other evaluation techniques as described in FAR 15.404(1)(b)(2), as needed.

2.4.5. Data Other than Certified Pricing Data

The Offeror may be required to provide data other than certified pricing data, if requested by the CO, to support a determination of reasonable and balanced pricing. This information will only be requested if all other sources have been insufficient to support a determination of reasonable and/or balanced pricing.

2.4.6 Total Evaluated Price (TEP):

The Government will confirm the Pricing Matrix (RFP Attachment 4) was completed and utilize it to evaluate Offeror’s TEP. It is the Offeror’s responsibility to ensure the accuracy of calculations and formulas in the proposal.