Attachment 9_Evaluation Procedures_Evaluation Factors for Award.pdf

ATTACHMENT

M-001 - PROPOSAL EVALUATION/EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The government will ensure an impartial, equitable, comprehensive, and efficient analysis of proposals, resulting in the selection of the proposed source which offers the most advantageous best value solution to the Government.

M.1 Evaluation Overview and Advisory Down-Selection

Following an initial GO/NO-GO screening to determine whether the Prime Offeror fulfills the required qualifications listed in Section L of this solicitation, the Government’s source selection process will include two Stages (Stage I and Stage II). Stage I will focus solely on technical evaluation (Factors 1, 2, and 3). Stage II will include both evaluation on additional technical considerations (Factors 4, 5, and 6), as well as pricing volume evaluation (Factor 7). Stage I factors, when combined, are significantly more important than Stage II factors.

Between Stage I and Stage II, each Offeror will receive an Advisory Notification, as described in

Section L of this solicitation.

Note:

1) The Advisory Notification is the only notice the Government will provide from Stage I;

debriefings will not occur at the end of Stage I.

2) Participation in Stage I is a mandatory part of this acquisition. Failure to participate in

Stage I will preclude further consideration of the Offeror’s proposal. Stage II submissions will not be accepted from any Offeror who has not participated in Stage I.

3) Evaluations of Stage I will be carried over to Stage II to be included in the overall evaluation of proposals.

In selecting the successful Offeror, 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 deemed responsible in accordance with FAR

Subpart 9.1 and whose proposal conforms to solicitation requirements and is determined to provide the best value to the Government.

For this solicitation, all evaluation factors other than price, when combined, are significantly more important than price. As non-price factors, when combined, become more equal, the evaluated price rises in importance and may become the determining factor. In addition, preferred (but not required) qualifications, will also rise in importance as other factors, when combined, become more equal. The SSA will determine what tradeoff between the non-price factors and price promises the best value to the Government, price and other factors considered.

M.2 Initial Receipt and Screening

Upon receipt, technical proposals will be screened by the Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) against the “Go/No-Go” criteria, as established in L-001.

The required Go/No-Go criteria are essential for the Government due to the following:

• Secret clearance level for both facility and personnel working on this contract reflect

EX/IT’s emphasis on security, as well as the confidential nature of data, systems, and other content that ECA’s IT services provider will come into contact with.

• CMMI DEV certification at Level 3 or higher reflects the Offeror’s proven and repeatable approach to development. EX/IT is a high performing organization with processes already implemented that need to be sustained/continuously improved; results in lower costs, improved quality, and on time delivery of products and services

• CMMI SVC certification at Level 3 or higher reflects the Offeror’s proven and repeatable approach to services that are provided, adequate resource alignment, customer agreements, operations, and disaster recover in organizations that provide services to customers; EX/IT maintains value in the customer service we provide with processes already implemented to support this that need to be sustained/continuously improved;

results in improved customer satisfaction and optimized resource capacity utilization

• ISO 9001 certification indicates the Offeror utilizes a quality management system (QMS) that ensures a higher level of productivity and quality when delivering products and services to customers; thoroughly documented quality and continuous improvement processes; results in improvements in productivity, efficiency, cost, and quality product delivery. Again, these are established practices within EX/IT that need to be sustained and continuously improved.

• AWS Consulting Partner Network Select (Standard) or higher reflects the Offeror’s experience with deploying/providing technical guidance to customers regarding cloud computing; EX/IT is migrating its applications to AWS and requires this level of experience to adequately address this shift.

Offerors not meeting these GO/NO-GO criteria will not receive further consideration and their Stage I response will not be reviewed.

M.3 Stage I Evaluation (Technical)

Stage I focuses heavily on assessing the technical capabilities of the Offeror. Stage I factors, when combined, are significantly more important than Stage II factors. The page limits noted in

Section L.4 for Factors 1-3 will be enforced to emphasize conciseness and maximum relevance in the Offeror’s Stage I deliverables.

Following initial screening against the established “GO/NO-GO” criteria, the Government will conduct its Stage I evaluation based upon the following factors.

Relative

Importance Stage I Factors (Technical)

1 Factor 1: Technical Work Product - Data Analytics & Visualization

2 Factor 2: Technical Work Product - IT Modernization

3 Factor 3: Past Performance

Factor 1: Technical Work Product: Data Analytics & Visualization

Factor 1 is a technical work product question to assess the Offeror’s technical competency and approach to Data Analytics & Visualization.

The Offeror’s response will be evaluated on:

• How well the Offeror analyzes and synthesizes the data using best practices

• How well the Offeror finds and integrates relevant supplemental publicly available data which:

o Reflects competent research and independent critical thinking skills o Directly aids the technical work product objective

• How valuable and perceptive the Offeror’s insights are regarding the economic indicators and their relevance to the work product objective

• How effective and clear Offeror presents visualization of the data to “tell the story” in the form of a dashboard, which will be evaluated on prioritization and execution of the following categories of data visualization: interactivity (ranging from static to explorable), clarity/aesthetics (ranging from functional to illustrated/illuminated), usability (ranging from technical to intuitive/guided), depth of analysis (ranging from none/basic to advanced), and performance (loads quickly and functions as designed)

• How effective the recommendations Offeror presents are in fulfilling and improving ECA mission

Factor 2: Technical Work Product: IT Modernization

Factor 2 is a technical work product question to assess the Offeror’s technical competency and approach to IT modernization.

The Offeror’s response will be evaluated on:

• Logic of approach detailed in the response, which efficiently streamlines the current infrastructure incorporates industry standards, and solves the problems

• Presents a creative approach articulating an updated strategy, as opposed to a generic or textbook approach

• The inclusion of a relevant diagram highlighting a sound approach, in addition to the key written takeaways

• How well Offeror’s diagram highlights an effective approach. Solutions should accomplish the following:

o Optimize workloads, maximize efficiency, and build a resilient system o Leverage enterprise emerging trends and technologies while ensuring a balance with operational stability

• How well Offeror’s key written takeaways and delineated approach address the following:

o Balances the need to innovate while “keeping the lights on” o Keeps costs down and optimize operational costs, both on-premises and off, while ensuring flexibility and scalability for future requirements

Factor 3: Past Performance

The Offeror’s past performance will be evaluated on:

• Information contained in the Offeror’s description of the project(s) and their relevancy to

EX/IT requirements including but not limited to:

o The project(s) submitted is/are similar in size, scope, complexity and technical difficulty to the EX/IT scope of services o The extent to which the project(s) submitted demonstrate the Offeror’s ability to support all six required functional areas within the EX/IT scope based on demonstrated past success doing so for other customers under similar circumstances

• Information derived from the past performance questionnaire(s) received and the extent to which this information substantiates the Offeror’s claims of providing high quality services of a similar nature in size, scope, complexity, technical difficulty, and dollar value in a manner that resulted in cost effective service delivery and high levels of customer satisfaction. The Government reserves the right to contact past performance references for additional information and clarification.

• Information that the Government obtains through other means including, but not limited to, CPARS reports, to assess the Offeror’s performance risk. The Government may consider positive and negative information found during the course of assessing relevant experience and past performance.

Failure to receive at least one questionnaire from a Federal customer by the Stage I deadline as reflected in the timeline provided in Section L.3 of this solicitation will cause the Offeror’s submission to be rated “non-responsive” and will remove the Offeror from consideration for Stage II.

At the conclusion of Stage I evaluation, the Government will follow the Advisory Down-Select evaluation process detailed in Section L.2 of this solicitation.

M.4 Stage II Evaluation (Technical and Pricing)

Stage II evaluates additional technical capabilities of the Offeror and includes pricing evaluation which is conducted separately from the technical portion. Altogether, the Stage II technical factors are worth significantly less than the Stage I technical factors. The 25-page limit, not counting key personnel resumes, will be enforced to emphasize conciseness and maximum relevance in the Offeror’s Stage II proposal submissions.

The Government will conduct its Stage II evaluation based upon the following factors:

Stage II Factors

Factor 4: Technical Approach, ADMP & Q&A

Sub-Factor A: Technical Approach to Functional Areas

Sub-Factor B: ADMP

Subfactor C: Responses to Q&A Topics

Factor 5: Staffing Plan & Key Personnel Resumes

Sub-Factor A: Overall Staffing Plan & Approach

Sub-Factor B: Key Personnel Resumes

Sub-Factor C: Employee Tenure & Retention

Factor 6: All Other Plan (Transition, Communications, Quality)

Sub-Factor A: Transition Plan

Sub-Factor B: Communications Plan

Sub-Factor C: Quality Plan

Evaluated

Separately Factor 7: Pricing

Factor 4: Technical Approach, Agile Development Management Plan (ADMP) & Q&A

Factor 4 will be evaluated based on the following sub-factors:

Sub-Factor 4A: Technical Approach to Functional Areas

• The Offeror’s approach towards addressing the goals, vision, and requirements of the six defined functional areas (Customer Engagement, Data & Analytics*, Solutions, Platforms, Security*, and Governance) reflecting a sound understanding of requirements.

*These functional areas will be more heavily weighted than the other functional areas.

• The Offeror’s ability to integrate CMMI and ITIL best practices into day-to-day-operations.

• The Offeror’s ability to implement and operate a DevSecOps environment to promote efficiencies and security.

• The Offeror’s demonstrated ability to effectively and efficiently manage all aspects of the program, including functional area requirements, quality assurance, program scheduling and staff management, and financial management.

• The Offeror’s proposed approach to achieving and monitoring the KPIs outlined in the solicitation.

• Preferred qualifications: While not required, proof of holding any of the preferred qualifications listed in Section L for Factor 4 may increase an Offeror’s confidence rating for this factor.

Sub-Factor 4B: Agile Development Management Plan (ADMP)

• The Offeror’s proposed ADMP’s focus on Agile goals and processes throughout the program

• Ability to propose and implement Agile design and delivery methods within a highly user-centric environment and provide a detailed phase design solution that aligns to the solicitation requirements as a best fit to EX/IT.

• The specificity of the Offeror’s ADMP to DOS-related goals, priorities, and operations.

• The Agile processes and tools the offeror will use to manage projects and tasks, resolve problems, communicate status to DOS, identify and manage risks, manage and control changes to configurations, ensure it delivers high quality products, and manage its subcontractors and suppliers.

• The Offeror’s expression of relevant and specific challenges experienced in directly implementing in the Agile space and how the Offeror successfully addressed these challenges.

Sub-Factor 4C: Responses to Q&A Topics

• The extent to which the Offeror understands the problems, issues, constraints, and systems involved and the approach and methodologies proposed to ensure successful accomplishment of the solicitation requirements.

• The Offeror’s description of specific challenges encountered directly in their past experience with implementing DevSecOps at federal client(s), and demonstrated experience in effectively overcoming these challenges.

• The extent to which the Offeror possesses demonstrated experience in innovation around software development and network management, among other relevant technical areas and cites multiple specific approaches with clear delineation of impact and results.

• The Offeror’s ability to demonstrate experience with moving and/or adapting to remote delivery of services to a predominantly virtual environment, with examples provided regarding resolving issues for clients, ensuring security, and lessons learned.

Factor 5: Staffing and Key Personnel Resumes

Factor 5 will be evaluated based on the following sub-factors:

Sub-Factor 5A: Key Personnel/Staffing Plan

• The extent to which the Offeror’s proposed staffing plan demonstrates its ability to satisfy contract requirements

• The extent to which the Offeror’s plan for acquiring and retaining qualified and experienced personnel is feasible, uses demonstrated best practices, and is likely to result in timely, consistent, professional and high-quality support services and deliverables

Sub-Factor 5B: Key Personnel Resumes

• The expertise and experience of staff proposed by the Offeror to meet PWS requirements

• The extent to which qualifications of proposed Key Personnel reflect relevant, successful and stable employment history; skills, experience, expertise and qualifications in relation to the

PWS requirements.

• Verification that the Project Manager is Project Manager Professional (PMP) and ITIL certified, that the Enterprise Architect is a Zachman Certified Enterprise Architect or AWS

Certified Solution Architect, that the Senior Network Engineer is CCNP certified, that the

Cloud Operations Engineer is AWS Associate or Professional Certified, and the Senior

Database Administrator is Oracle Database Administration Certified Professional (12c or higher).

• Preferred qualifications: While not required, proof that proposed Key Personnel hold any of the preferred qualifications listed in the Labor Category Descriptions may increase an

Offeror’s confidence rating for this factor.

Sub-Factor 5C: Employee Tenure & Retention

• The extent that Offeror has succeeded in maximizing tenure and retention overall, including breakout by both prime and subcontractors/teaming partners, as expressed in the tenure table submitted with the Offeror’s technical response (Attachment 5)

• The extent that Offeror has succeeded in maximizing tenure and retention for key labor categories that align with solicitation requirements

• The extent to which the Offeror’s approach to talent management includes unique or innovative incentives or approaches to attracting and retaining a high-quality workforce, promoting continuous learning and enhancement of personnel skill sets and expertise, and ensuring high-quality service delivery.

Through its evaluation of Employee Tenure and Retention and the Offeror’s approach to talent management, the Government will determine its level of confidence in the likelihood of the

Offeror’s successful performance in meeting the work described in the functional areas outlined in the statement of work.

Factor 6: Program Management Plans (Transition, Communications, Quality)

Factor 6 will be evaluated based on the following sub-factors:

Sub-Factor 6A: Transition Plan

• The Offeror’s proposed draft Transition Plan will be evaluated for completeness, timeliness of transition process, efficiency, understanding and consideration of the current environment, responsibility outline, schedule, communication, risk identification and mitigation strategies, performance measure considerations, incumbent transition, and recruitment strategies that will ensure a timely and seamless assumption of services.

• The offeror’s proposed turnover to a successor contractor at contract end.

Sub-Factor 6B: Communications Plan

• The Offeror’s proposed draft Communication Plan that demonstrates a collaborative, structured, and effective approach to delivering timely, pertinent communications to various stakeholders within the organization that ensure the successful completion of quality services and deliverables.

• Consideration of various communication styles required for onsite vs. virtual exchanges

Sub-Factor 6C: Quality Plan

• The Offeror’s approach as addressed in the proposed draft Quality Plan / QASP that demonstrates best practices and is likely to result in timely, consistent, professional, and quality services and deliverables.

• The Offeror definition of a specific management methodology to be followed during the performance of the work, including such aspects as documentation management and control, development coordination procedures, design checks and reviews, technical review, CI/CD, DevSecOps, and managerial continuity and flexibility.

• The Offeror’s ability to describe the way in which they will produce deliverables, and the step-by-step approach that will be taken to ensure the quality of provided solutions and services at the IDIQ level, as well as management of supplemental documentation for each

Task Order under the IDIQ.

When the final best value/tradeoff analysis is conducted, the government will weigh the six (6) technical factors in the following order of importance:

Overall Technical Evaluation

1 Factor 1: Technical Work Product: Data Analytics & Visualization

2 Factor 2: Technical Work Product: IT Modernization

3 Factor 4: Technical Approach, ADMP & Q&A

4 Factor 3: Past Performance

5 Factor 5: Staffing Plan and Key Personnel Resumes

6 Factor 6: Program Management Plans (Transition, Communications, Quality)

All technical evaluation factors when combined, are significantly more important than price. However, when the non-cost/price factors are rated more equally between Offerors, cost/price becomes more of a deciding factor in making the best value determination.

Factor 7: Pricing Volume

The Government anticipates adequate price competition under this solicitation, with such competition ensuring that the fully burdened hourly labor rates will be fair and reasonable. Price proposals shall be submitted in a separate file using the provided Excel Pricing Workbook

(Attachment 7). The Government will evaluate submitted Pricing Tables for the Base Period and all Option Periods using a specified level of effort (LOE) and staffing mix provided as a separate tab in the Excel Pricing Workbook. This sample LOE will be used for evaluation purposes only and does not represent a specific requirement. Evaluation of option-year pricing will not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

The Government will review and evaluate all pricing information contained within the proposed pricing. In addition to evaluating the pricing of the sample LOE, the Government may use one or more of the proposal analysis techniques stipulated in FAR 15.404-1 to further substantiate that the pricing received is fair and reasonable. These approaches may include, but are not limited to, comparison of proposed labor rates to the rates currently being paid under the existing contract for similar services, which are believed to be fair and reasonable and representative of current market rates for the skill sets required in the SOW. The Government may examine price proposals for:

a. Pricing Completeness

b. Total Proposed Pricing as determined by the sample LOE

c. Price Reasonableness as determined by a comparison of proposed prices received in response to this solicitation.

In making an award determination, the Government’s evaluation of the combined Technical

Factors will be weighted substantially more than price. As Technical Factors 1-6 become more equal, the Pricing Volume will receive greater consideration in the best value/tradeoff analysis.

The Contracting Officer will determine what tradeoffs promise the greatest value to the

Government, when considering both price and non-price factors, and shall not be required to select the lowest price Offeror. Technical Factors, when taken together, are significantly more important than Price in the final determination.

M.5 Basis for Award

Award will be made on a best value/tradeoff basis. Best value, as defined by FAR 2.101, means the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the Government’s estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirement. The Government will form its estimation of best value through an integrated assessment by the Contracting Officer of the results of the evaluations based on the evaluation factors and their relative importance. The Government reserves such right of flexibility in conducting the evaluation as is necessary to assure placement of the IDIQ in the Government's best interest. Ultimately, the source selection decision will be based on the Government’s assessment of the Offeror's capabilities to meet the requirements of this solicitation.

The Government will utilize the Tradeoff Source Selection Process. This process allows for a tradeoff between non-price factors and cost/price and allows the Government to accept other than the lowest priced proposals or other than the highest technically rated proposals to achieve a best value award decision. All evaluation factors other than Factor 7 – Pricing Volume, when combined, are significantly more important than price. However, when the non-cost/price factors are rated more equally between Offerors, cost/price becomes more of a deciding factor in making the best value determination. Offerors are strongly encouraged to submit their most advantageous technical and price proposals with their initial submission.

M.6 Discussions

The government intends to make an award without discussions. However, if the government deems it in its best interest, it may elect to set a competitive range of the most highly rated offerors and request revised proposals among those in the competitive range. The competitive range may also be limited for the purposes of efficiency in accordance with FAR 15.306(c)(2).

M.7. Rating Methodology

Evaluation of all non-price factors in Stage I and II (pricing will be evaluated separately) will use the following confidence ratings. The Government will consider the benefits and risks associated with the Offeror’s quotation to arrive at a confidence assessment of the Offeror’s likelihood of successfully performing the requirements of the solicitation.

Table M1: Non-Price Factor Confidence Ratings

Rating Description

High Confidence

The Government has high confidence that the Offeror understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, and will be successful in performing the work.

Moderate Confidence

The Government has moderate confidence that the Offeror understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, and will be successful in performing the work.

Low Confidence

The Government has low confidence that the Offeror understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, and will be successful in performing the work.