Attachment 6 - Section M Evaluation.pdf

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

FOR

SQUADRON OPERATIONS CENTER ENTERPRISE MULTIPLE

AWARD IDIQ ACQUISITION

16 June 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.

1.1.1 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); and, (3) based on the evaluation factors, the Offeror’s proposal represents the best value to the Government.

1.1.2 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.

1.2 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.

1.3 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.

1.4 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.

1.5 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.

1.6 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 price, technical, 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.

1.7 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.

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 not intended to restrict the Offeror’s opportunity to revise figures (e.g., prices, discounts, percentages, rates, etc.); rather, it 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.

If, upon submission of the FPR, an Offeror materially changes its proposal such that the price is no longer fair and reasonable or sufficient to keep them among the lowest priced Offerors, or other 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.

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.

2.2 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.

2.3 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.

3.0 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY AND FACTORS

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).

3.1.1 Step One: The Government will evaluate the offeror’s Volume I, Executive Summary on a

Pass/Fail basis. A rating of Fail on any element within the Executive Summary Volume will result in an overall rating of Fail, which renders the offeror ineligible for award, and the offeror will not advance to Step Two.

3.1.2 Step Two: The Government will evaluate the offeror’s Volume II, Contract Documentation on a

Pass/Fail basis. A rating of Fail on any element within the Contract Documentation Volume will result in an overall rating of Fail, which renders the offeror ineligible for award, and the offeror will not advance to Step Three.

3.1.3 Step Three: The Government will evaluate the offeror’s Volume III, Past Experience and validate the offeror’s Self-Scoring Matrix to determine the offeror’s Government-validated Past Experience

Score. To advance to Step Four, 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

2.4.2.1and 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 it will render the offeror ineligible for award.

3.1.4 Step Four: The Government will evaluate the offeror’s Volume VI, Past Performance and assign the offeror a Performance Confidence Rating. To advance to Step Five 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.

3.1.5 Step Five: If the offeror’s proposal advances to Step Five it represents the Best-Value to the

Government and an award will be made to that offeror.

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

Factor 1: Executive Summary

Factor 2: Contract Documentation

Factor 3: Past Experience

Factor 4: 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. Factor 1 – Executive Summary

4.1 The offeror’s Executive Summary Volume will be evaluated on a Pass/Fail basis. To earn a rating of

Pass the proposal must meet all the following criteria. If the proposal does not meet one or more of the criteria below it will result in a rating of Fail for Factor 1, rendering the offeror ineligible for award:

4.1.1 The completed Attachment 7 – Offeror Company Information Form is complete and indicates the proposal is valid through January 31, 2022, and the Government is able to verify the offeror’s SAM registration and Top Secret Facility Clearance (FCL).

4.1.2 The proposal includes adequate evidence of financial information that clearly demonstrates the offeror’s ability to obtain required resources to perform the contract requirements.

4.1.3 The proposal contains a current letter or report from Defense Contract Audit Agency

(DCAA)/Defesen Contract Management Agency (DCMA) that states the offeror’s accounting system has been approved, or is adequate for cost reimbursement contracts or if a current letter is not available the proposal contains the most recent letter and a statement that the accounting system hasn’t changed since that time, or if it has changed, it includes DCAA/DCMA certification indicating the changes have not impacted the approval or adequacy.

4.2.3 The proposal contains the offeror’s assessment of potential or actual Organizational Conflicts of

Interest (OCI), and if any actual or potential OCIs exist, the proposal includes a mitigation plan and determination of whether the plan adequately resolves the issues and provides protection to both the offeror and Government. No mitigation plan is required if the offeror stated there is no potential or actual OCIs.

5. Factor 2 – Contract Documentation

5.1 The offeror’s Contract Documentation Volume will be evaluated on a Pass/Fail basis. To earn a rating of Pass the proposal must contain a completed SF33 and any SF30 Amendments for solicitation FA489021R0007 to include the completion of blocks 12-18 on the SF30, the offeror’s signature on the SF33 and all SF30 amendments, Fill-in of any clauses in Section I that require offeror’s input, and fill-in of any provisions and representations and certifications required in Section

K. If any of these elements are missing or incomplete it will result in a rating of Fail for Factor 2, rendering the offeror ineligible for award.

6 Factor 3 – Past Experience.

6.1 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 (Attachment 10) 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

(Attachment 8). 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 Self-Scoring Matrix (Attachment 9).

6.2 If an Offeror fails to submit Attachment 9 - Self-Scoring Matrix and/or Attachment 10 - Cross

Reference Matrix) the Government will not be able to assign a Government-validated Past Experience

Score and it will render the offeror ineligible for award.

7 Factor 4 – Past Performance.

7.1 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 (Attachment 12) 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.

7.2 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.

7.3 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.

7.4 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.

7.4.1 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.

7.5 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.

7.5.1 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.