Attachment 6 - Section-M 03 Aug 21.pdf

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

FOR

SQUADRON OPERATIONS CENTER ENTERPRISE MULTIPLE AWARD IDIQ

ACQUISITION

03 August 2021

1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION

1.1 Basis of Contract Award. This is a best value source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3 and DoD Source Selection Procedures, as supplemented. FAR

15.101 states that best value is obtained by using any one or a combination of source selection approaches. In this procurement, the Government will select the best overall offers that, based upon the results of an integrated assessment of the proposals, offer the Government a combination of the Highest Technically Rated (HTR) Past Experience ratings and the highest Past Performance confidence ratings. Although this source selection includes an integrated assessment, between Past Experience and Past Performance, the evaluation methodology is not a Tradeoff as the Government will not evaluate Cost/Price. For the integrated assessment, Past Performance is determined to be slightly more important than Past Experience. This may result in an award being made to an Offeror with a lower Past Experience score, but higher Past Performance rating.

1.2 The Government contemplates award of a multiple award IDIQ contract resulting from this solicitation. This requirement is solicited as a partial set-aside, under NAICS 541513 Computer Facilities Management, in accordance with FAR 19.502-4 Partial set-asides of multiple award contracts, where a portion of the requirement will be set-aside for Small Business and a portion of the requirement will be set-aside for 8(a). The following portions of the requirement will be set-aside for 8(a) and will be exclusively competed amongst eligible 8(a) IDIQ awardees in accordance with FAR 19.805, all other portions of the requirement are set-aside for Small Business:

1.2.1 Air National Guard (ANG) Contractor Field Service Representative (CFSR) Support. This includes field maintenance services (SME) support required to install, configure, support, maintain, administer and train ANG Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA)- Squadron Operation Center (SOC) hardware and software systems supporting RPA operations at twelve ANG locations and the integration center at Robins AFB, GA. The scope of work includes new sites up to and including a total of 14 sites.

1.2.2 System Program Office (SPO) RPA SOC baselined systems Install/Warehouse Support. This includes the procurement of hardware and software, warehousing of Government procured material, related engineering services, and installation of hardware, software, and equipment at multiple CONUS locations in support of SPO RPA SOC baselined systems.

1.3 Contracts may be awarded to the Offerors who are deemed qualified. In order to be considered qualified, the Government must determine (1) the Offeror to be responsible in accordance with FAR 9.104-1; (2) the Offeror’s proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, Facility Clearance (FCL) and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation); (3) based on the evaluation factors, the Offeror’s proposal represents the best value to the Government: and (4) the Contracting Officer has no reason to believe the offeror would be likely to offer other than fair and reasonable pricing (price will not be evaluated for contract award).

1.4 The Source Selection Authority (SSA) will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of all source selection evaluation criteria (described below). While the Government source selection evaluation team 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.

1.5 The Government reserves the right to exercise “on-ramps” and “off ramps” provisions as described in Section H of this solicitation to award additional contracts or remove and/or terminate contractors at any point within the ordering period.

1.6 IDIQ Ceiling. The overall ceiling of the IDIQ is estimated at $750M for eight years. The total value of all task orders awarded under the IDIQ will not exceed this amount. Funding will be determined at the individual task order level.

1.7 Minimum Guaranteed Task Order. A Post-Award Conference will be awarded to each IDIQ awardee. The task order for the Post-Award Conference is $5,000.00 and will satisfy the minimum order requirement. A Contractor that is awarded an IDIQ contract is not guaranteed any task order beyond the minimum guaranteed task order Post-Award Conference. The Cost/Price of the Post-Award Conference will not be evaluated.

1.8 Proposals Substantiation. Unsubstantiated and/or misleading claims, for even a single Past Experience evaluation criterion, could result in the Government determining that the Offeror’s proposed self-score is disingenuous and/or artificially inflated and the Offeror’s entire proposal determined unacceptable.

1.9 Discussions. The Government reserves the right to award without discussions and make award based on initial proposals, but may conduct discussions if the Government determines it is necessary. If it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, the SSA, with CO concurrence, will make a Competitive Range determination, evaluation notices may be issued to Offerors in the competitive range, responses will be requested from applicable Offerors, and discussions will be opened. The competitive range may include proposals rated as “Unacceptable” at the sole discretion of the Government. Offerors should be aware that a complete understanding as to past experience, past performance, and all other terms and conditions of the proposed contract must exist between the Offeror and the Government at the conclusion of discussions.

1.10 Final Proposal Revision. If the Government conducts and concludes discussions, the Government will request a Final Proposal Revision (FPR) from all Offerors remaining in the competitive range once discussions are closed. Formal responses to FPRs will be considered in making the award decision.

1.10.1 Any revision or non-concurrence to contract terms and conditions submitted in the FPR may not be subject to further discussion, and may render the offer unacceptable to the Government. This provision is intended to preclude any misunderstandings by the Government, which could result if new or revised terms and conditions are submitted in the FPR that have not been fully disclosed, discussed and understood during discussions. Hence, such new or revised terms and conditions are not solicited and, if submitted in the FPR, may render the offer unacceptable to the Government.

1.10.2 If, upon submission of the FPR, an Offeror materially changes its proposal such that the factor inputs change their ranking among other Offerors, the Offeror may be removed from consideration for award.

2.0 ELIGIBILITY AND RESPONSIBILITY

2.1 Eligibility. To be eligible for award, Offerors shall meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and other instructions identified within the solicitation. Offerors shall comply with content required within each of the proposal volumes and sections. Failure to comply with any requirement of the solicitation may result in the Offeror being determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

2.2 The Government will review the proposal documentation to ensure all required documentation was provided in response to the solicitation. The Government will rely on the provided documentation to facilitate the Contracting Officer’s determination of Contractor responsiveness.

2.3 Responsibility. No award shall be made to an Offeror unless the Contracting Officer determines them to be responsible. To be determined responsible, an Offeror shall meet the general standards described in FAR 9.104-1. The Contracting Officer may consider information provided within any volume of the proposal when making the determination of responsibility.

2.4 Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI). Organizational Conflict of Interest issues are treated in a manner similar to responsibility determinations. An Offeror’s actual or potential OCI concerns must be avoided, mitigated, or neutralized before that Offeror may receive an award of this contract.

2.5 A Top Secret Facility Clearance is required. An Offeror without the requisite clearance will not be permitted as a prime contractor due to the required security classification. Offerors shall possess or acquire a facility clearance equal to the requirement on the DD254 without additional authorization (i.e. National Interest Determination ((NID)) by the proposal date. If an Offeror does not have the required clearance at the time of proposal submission, the proposal will not be evaluated and is not eligible for award. Sensitive Compartmentalized Information (SCI) work will take place at a Government facility.

3.0 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

3.1 Evaluation Methodology. The Government will utilize a Highest Technically Rated Offeror (HTRO) methodology. The HTRO method requires the Offeror to self-score based on the objective criteria described in Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors or Respondents (ITO). Once the Government has determined the proposal to be responsive, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal using the following two (2) steps:

3.2 Step One: The Government will evaluate the offeror’s Past Experience (Volume I), validate the offeror’s Self-Scoring Matrix, and enter the Government validated score in the government portion of the SOC-E Scoring Matrix (Appendix D). To advance to Step Two, the Government-validated Past Experience Score must demonstrate qualifying experience in at least 90% of the Critical SOC-E task areas, which equates to at least twenty (20) of the twenty-two (22) Critical SOC-E task areas defined in Section L paragraph 2.4.2.1 and demonstrates experience in at least 75% of the Standard SOC-E task areas which equates to at least twenty-seven (27) of the thirty-five (35) Standard SOC-E task areas defined in Section L paragraph 2.4.2.2. If the proposal fails to meet this criteria the Offeror will not move on to Step 2 and it will render the Offeror’s proposal ineligible for award.

3.3 Step Two: The Government will evaluate the offeror’s Past Performance (Volume II) and assign the offeror a Performance Confidence Rating. The offeror must receive a Performance Confidence Rating of SUBSTANTIAL. If the offeror receives any Performance Confidence Rating other than SUBSTANTIAL it will render the offeror ineligible for award.

3.4 All eligible and responsible offerors with a SUBSTANTIAL Performance Confidence Rating represent the Best-Value to the Government and will receive an award.

4.0 FACTORS

4.1 Evaluation Factors. The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal:

Factor 1: Past Experience Factor 2: Past Performance

In accordance with 10 U.S.C. 2305(a)(3)(C)(i), Cost/Price will not be evaluated during this source selection; Cost/Price will be evaluated for each individual task order.

4.2 Factor 1 – Past Experience.

4.2.1 The Offerors proposals will be sorted based on initial self-scoring. The Government will sort all proposals from the highest self-rated Offeror to the lowest self-rated Offeror. The Government will validate Offeror’s self-scores using the offeror’s Cross Reference Matrix and work samples provided. The Government will review the section of the work sample that is listed within the Cross Reference Matrix (Appendix E) to validate the offeror’s experience is within scope of the identified work experience category. If the substantiating information cannot be found within the referenced page, paragraph, table, etc. the Government may contact POCs identified on the Work Sample Cover Sheet (Appendix B). If the Offerors score cannot be validated based on the work samples, Cross Reference Matrix, or clarifications with pertinent POCs, the Government will unilaterally downward adjust the score, potentially all the way down to zero (0) points. The Government will ONLY adjust the Offeror’s self-score downward, not upward. Adjustments are within the sole discretion of the Government. Once the Government has validated self-scores, the validated scores will then be entered in the government portion of the SOCE Scoring Matrix (Appendix D).

4.2.2 If an Offeror fails to submit Appendix D (Scoring Matrix) and/or Appendix E (Cross Reference Matrix) the Government will not assign a Government-validated Past Experience Score and it will render the offeror ineligible for award.

4.3 Factor 2 – Past Performance.

4.3.1 Past Performance Evaluation. The Government will assess Past Performance of Offerors with a qualifying Government-validated score within. IAW ITO 2.5.2, Offerors shall only submit a Past Performance Information Sheet (Appendix G) for five work samples. The Past Performance evaluation will be conducted in four phases: recency assessment, relevancy assessment, performance quality assessment, and the performance confidence assessment.

4.3.2 Recency Assessment. First, the Government will assess whether Past Performance information is recent. The Government will perform an independent determination of recency of the data provide or obtained. Past Performance information will either be determined “Recent” or “Not Recent.” In accordance with ITO Section 2.4.1.2, in order for the Past Performance materials to be determined “Recent,” at least six months of performance shall have been within the last five years, as of the date on the RFP Letter.

4.3.3 Relevancy Assessment. In determining relevancy for each contract reference, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being performed by the Offeror, joint venture, teaming partner or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The Government will evaluate relevancy and assign a relevancy rating for each recent PPI contract reference in accordance with the following criteria:

Table 1. Relevancy Definitions

RATING DEFINITION

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

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

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and 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.

4.3.4 Performance Quality Assessment. The Government will then assess the quality of each

Offeror’s submitted past performance record and any additional information the Government is able to obtain. The Government will consider information provided in the Past Performance Information Sheets, CPARS and PPQs. Pursuant to FAR 15.305(a)(2)(ii), the Government may also obtain and evaluate Past Performance information from other sources, including but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), or other databases; the Defense Contract Management Agency; and interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, interviews with Government customers.

4.3.5 Adverse Findings. The performance quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. An “Adverse Finding” is defined as Past Performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. For adverse information identified, the performance quality assessment will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and whether corrective actions were effective and resulted in sustained improvements. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance are demonstrated.

4.3.6 Past Performance Confidence Assessment. Lastly, the Government will assign a single Past Performance confidence rating to the Offerors with a qualifying Government-validated score within each pool. The Past Performance confidence rating is based on an integrated assessment of the Offeror’s overall recency, relevance, and quality of service for work provided by the Offeror or obtained by the Government.

4.3.7 Performance Confidence Ratings. The performance confidence ratings are described in Table 2 below.

Table 2- Performance Confidence Ratings

Adjectival 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.

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.

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.

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.