Attachment 9_Section M.pdf

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1.0 GENERAL

Note: Offerors are advised that technical proposals may be evaluated without consideration of any proposed subcontractor which is deemed to have an organizational or personal conflict of interest.

The Government intends to make a single award as a result of this solicitation. Award will be made to the responsible Offeror passing all Pass/Fail requirements of the solicitation and whose proposal contains the combination of those factors offering the best value to the Government. The best value to the Government will be determined by comparing the difference in value of technical (non-cost/price) features of proposals with the difference in the cost/price to the Government.

The Government intends to award a contract on the basis of initial proposals without conducting discussions (except for clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)), as permitted by FAR 15.306(a)(3) and FAR 52.215-1. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined to be necessary by the Contracting Officer.

Pursuant to FAR 15.306(c)(2), the Contracting Officer may also limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

2.0 PASS/FAIL EVALUATION

Offerors will be evaluated based on a Pass/Fail rating on the requirements listed below. Offerors must receive a Pass rating under each Pass/Fail Requirement to be eligible for award. A rating of Fail may result in no further consideration for award. The Pass/Fail rating criteria is as follows:

2.1 Small Business Participation

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s small business participation in accordance with the small business objective or its rationale for its proposed deviation as set forth in Section L.

2.2 Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) Mitigation Plan

The Government will verify that the Offeror indicated whether or not any conflicts of interest or potential conflicts of interest exist. If a conflict of interest or potential conflict of interest exists, the Government will evaluate whether the offeror’s mitigation plan sufficiently addresses any conflicts of interest or potential conflicts of interest identified.

Note: Award will only be made to an Offeror that has not organizational conflicts of interest as defined in FAR 9.5 or that the Government determines has provided a satisfactory mitigation plan. Offerors are advised that technical proposals may be evaluated without consideration of any proposed subcontractor which is deemed to have an organizational conflict of interest.

2.3 Plan for Obtaining Personnel Clearances

The Government will evaluate the plan for obtaining personnel security clearances within ninety (90) days of the start of the first ordering period at the required level as specified in the DD254, including confirmation of existing clearances, details of the Offeror’s process for obtaining new clearances, and the schedule for obtaining any required new personnel security clearances during the life of the contract.

2.4 Facility and Safeguarding Clearances

The Government will verify whether the Offeror’s facility and safeguarding clearances meet the levels specified in the DD Form 254 using Government source of information for all CAGE codes provided. The Government will confirm the Offeror’s facility clearance(s) using the Facility Clearance Database.

2.5 Software Development Plan (SDP)

SPD Element 1 - The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed software development plan for the system to be developed to ensure that the Offeror understands the software development requirements of the solicitation and for compliance with the minimum content requirements stated in Section C.

SPD Element 2 - The Government will evaluate Offeror’s relevant previous experience in developing software of similar size and complexity as that being acquired with this solicitation.

SPD Element 3 – The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s previous relevant experience in developing software using the same or similar approach as proposed for this solicitation. The result of any relevant standard model-based process maturity appraisals performed within 36 months prior to proposal submission, and the use of proposed staff experience in using these processes will be part of the evaluation criteria.

2.6 Government Furnished Property

The Government will determine whether the Offeror has methods and systems in place for managing GFP to comply with FAR 52.245-1 and DFARS 252.245-7005.

2.7 Licenses and Certifications

The Government will verify that a certificate was provided for each of the following:

Certified LabView Developer (CLD)

Equivalent certifications will not be considered and shall result in a Fail.

2.8 Transition Plan

The Government will evaluate the transition plan for whether the Offeror will reach full operational tempo within 90 days after period of performance start date and whether the Offeror can successfully perform until it reaches full operational tempo.

3.0 RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF EVALUATION FACTORS

The Government will evaluate each Offeror's proposal in accordance with the evaluation factors to determine the best value proposal. The evaluation factors represent key areas of importance to be considered in the source selection decision. The factors and associated subfactors have been chosen to support meaningful discrimination between competing proposals.

Factor Subfactors

1. Technical Capability A. Hypothetical Problems

B. Personnel Approach

2. Past Performance None

3. Cost/Price None

The relative importance of the evaluation factors is as follows. Factor 1 is more important than Factor 2. Factors 1 and 2, when combined, are significantly more important than Factor 3. The subfactors of Technical are the following order of importance: A. Hypothetical Problems, then B. Personnel Approach.

The degree of importance of Factor 3 will increase with the degree of equality of the proposals in relation to the non-cost factors on which selection is to be based, or when the evaluated cost delta between Offerors is so significant as to diminish the value of the superiority of the non-cost factors.

4.0 FACTOR 1 – TECHNICAL CAPABILITY

The Government will evaluate offers and assign one of the adjectival ratings indicated in paragraph (7.0) of this solicitation for each of the following subfactors.

4.1 Subfactor A – Hypothetical Problems

The Government will evaluate the responses to each Hypothetical Problem to assess the Offeror’s understanding of the issue(s), SOW requirement(s), and the approach to handling each Hypothetical Problem. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s identification of Applicable Documents (ADs) and Government Furnished Information (GFI) necessary to accomplish each Hypothetical Problem and the Offeror’s plan to effectively incorporate applicable ADs and GFI into performance of each Hypothetical Problem. The Government will also evaluate Offeror’s identification and demonstrated understanding of significant potential risks as well as appropriate mitigation plans for each Hypothetical Problem.

4.2 Subfactor B – Personnel Approach

4.2.1 Senior Technical Representative (STR)

The Government will evaluate the proposed STR’s qualifications to manage tasks, including their authority, ability to independently commit company resources to performance under this contract and their line of communication to senior company management. The Government will also evaluate the proposed STR’s previous experience managing similar efforts.

4.2.2 Key Personnel

The Government will consider the qualifications as stated in the resume submitted for each Key Person. The Government will evaluate the merits of Key Personnel as indicated in the resume against the SOW tasks to which the individual(s) is/are assigned in the proposal and the typical qualifications of the selected labor category, including level (i.e. I, II, III, IV), in terms of education and experience (see:

http://www.navsea.navy.mil/Home/WarfareCenters/NUWCNewport/Partnerships/CommercialContracts/LaborCateg ories.aspx).

For Key Personnel, including the STR where they are proposed to perform tasking not directly attributable to the STR duties, the Government will evaluate the merits of the individual as indicated in the resume against the SOW tasks to which the individual is assigned in the proposal and the typical qualifications of the selected labor category, including level (i.e. I, II, III, IV), in terms of education and experience (see:

http://www.navsea.navy.mil/Home/WarfareCenters/NUWCNewport/Partnerships/CommercialContracts/LaborCateg ories.aspx).

The Government will also evaluate the qualifications and expertise of the proposed Key Personnel against the Key Personnel requirements identified in Section L. A proposal that includes Key Personnel who do not meet the required qualifications listed in Section L shall be rated Unacceptable. A proposal demonstrating more complete coverage of the Key Personnel requirements may be determined to have greater value. If any proposed Key Personnel are not currently employees of the offeror or proposed subcontractor offeror, or who are proposed to permanently relocate, the Government will verify that signed Letters of Intent (LOIs), dated no earlier than the solicitation release date, are provided.

4.2.3 Labor Mix

In its evaluation of the proposed labor mix, the Government will consider the typical qualifications associated with the labor category selected, including level (i.e., I, II, III, IV), for each Non-Key Person; for any Non-Key SCLS labor categories proposed, the Government will consider the functional duties detailed in the SCA Directory of Occupations.

Mix of Personnel. The Government will evaluate the overall mix of personnel, including the explanation of how any deviating (25% or more from the Government’s estimate) mix of personnel correlates to the SOW, to determine how well the proposed team is suited to perform all aspects of the SOW.

Contractor to Government Site Ratio. If the offeror’s proposed contractor to government site ratio varies by more than 10 percent (10%) from the Government’s estimated Government-to-Contractor site ratio as specified in Section L, the Government will evaluate the rationale of why the proposed contractor to Government site ratio is appropriate and how contract/task order performance will not be negatively impacted by the variance.

Personnel Outside Commuting Area. If personnel outside the commuting area of NUWCDIVNPT are proposed, the Government will evaluate the offeror’s submission on how the personnel can be used effectively and efficiently, and how there would be adequate management control.

Work in Excess of 40 Hours. If the offeror proposes personnel who would work in excess of forty (40) hours per week, the Government will evaluate the proposed hours, the offeror’s corporate policy on such, the number of hours without supervision, and schedule.

5.0 FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE

The Government will evaluate offers and assign one of the adjectival ratings indicated in paragraph (7.0) of this solicitation.

The past performance evaluation assesses the degree of confidence the Government has in an Offeror’s ability to supply products and services that meet the Government’s requirements, based on a demonstrated record of performance.

The Government may consider Past performance information obtained from any sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; the Defense Contract Management Agency; and interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Fee Determining Officials. The Government reserves the right to limit or expand the number of references it decides to contact, and to contact references other than those provided by the Offeror. The Government may also contact all or some of each Offeror’s customers to obtain past performance information. In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the Offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.

For subcontractors proposed to perform more than twenty-five (25%) of the total contract value, the Government will verify that the offeror included a commitment signed by the offeror and subcontractor certifying that if a contract is awarded as a result of the proposal, the parties commit to joint performance as proposed. If the signed commitment is not fully executed by both parties and provided with the Past Performance Proposal, then the subcontractor references will not be evaluated or considered.

For affiliate companies, sister companies, teaming arrangements, joint venture agreement, etc., proposed to perform more than twenty-five (25%) of the total contract value, the Government will verify that documentation shows the primary offering entity demonstrated that the affiliate would perform significant and critical aspects of the contract if awarded. Documentation must include a copy of the signed arrangement (ex. documented affiliation, a copy of the teaming agreement, a copy of the joint venture agreement). If the signed arrangement is not fully executed by both parties and provided with the Past Performance Proposal, then the references will not be evaluated or considered.

6.0 FACTOR 3 – COST/PRICE

Cost/Price will be evaluated but not rated or scored.

6.1 Maximum Fee Rate – Applicable to all CPFF Task Orders

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed fixed fee rate in Section L of the solicitation. Offerors that propose fixed fee in excess of the maximum percentage specified in Section L will be determined Unacceptable and ineligible for award.

Note: If an Offeror does not identify a maximum fee percentage, the maximum fee percentage at 6% will be utilized for the Government’s evaluation and any resulting contract.

For the FFP CLIN 0003, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed maximum profit rate percentage. If an Offeror does not identify a maximum profit rate, the maximum profit rate at 6% will be utilized for the Government’s evaluation and any resulting contract.

6.2 Cost/Price

The Government will perform a cost realism analysis of the cost proposal. The Government will evaluate the proposed cost elements to determine whether they are realistic for the work to be performed; reflect a clear understanding of the requirements; and are consistent with the technical proposal (e.g. Volume 1 – Technical Capability). The Government will determine the probable cost of performance by calculating the total evaluated cost for the entire cost proposal. The total evaluated cost is the sum of the realistic costs for all priced CLINs/SLINs inclusive of options and proposed fees. The total evaluated cost is determined by upwardly adjusting proposed costs to reflect more realistic levels based on the cost realism substantiating data, unless otherwise stated in Section L.

The total evaluated cost may differ from the proposed cost and will reflect the Government’s best estimate of the cost of actual performance in contract execution. The total evaluated cost will be used for purposes of evaluation to determine the best value.

The Government will evaluate whether the proposed costs are unrealistically low, and the Government will make upward adjustments to those proposed costs that it determines in its judgement to be unrealistically low. The Government may also assign risk, weaknesses, and/or deficiencies to proposals that contain unrealistically low costs, unsupported costs, and/or costs inconsistent with the technical volume. The Government will not evaluate whether proposed cost elements are unrealistically high in a competitive environment since the fundamental purpose of a cost realism analysis is to guard the Government against any unrealistic claims of cost savings.

The Government reserves the right to use information other than the information provided in the cost proposal in order to perform cost realism analysis and develop the total evaluated cost. This may include, but not limited to, information from DCMA or DCAA, independent government cost estimates, salary databases or websites, invoices, aggregated cost data, historical data, etc. The Government also reserves the right to limit or expand its evaluation of the cost proposal to include technical analysis, unbalanced pricing analysis, cost analysis, and/or price analysis using the methods authorized under FAR 15.404-1.

The Government’s evaluation will apply the higher of the proposed escalation rate or the current Information Handling Services (IHS) Global Insight Rate (GIR) of 3.30%. The Government’s evaluation will apply the evaluated escalation rate (higher of the proposed or IHS GIR) to all direct labor (including SCLS) using a midpoint escalation methodology. In addition, the Government will apply higher indirect rates in its evaluation if the proposed indirect rates are not substantiated by supporting information included with the proposal.

The Government reserves the right to limit cost realism analysis to only those Offerors that represent the most likely candidates for award and not make any cost realism adjustments to those Offeror’s cost proposals that are high cost and have inferior adjectival ratings under Factor 1 – Technical Capability. The Government reserves the right to not perform a cost realism analysis on any Offeror that is assigned an “Unacceptable” adjectival rating under Factor 1 – Technical Capability. The Government reserves the right to not perform cost realism analysis on subcontractor proposals that reflect less than 5% of the total labor hours. The Government will not perform cost realism analysis on subcontractor proposals that are proposed on a Time-and-Materials or fixed priced basis (e.g. FFP, FFP LOE, etc.).

For evaluation purposes only, to determine an offeror’s total evaluated cost/price, the Government will add the total evaluated costs and fees for CLIN 0001 + the total evaluated costs for CLIN 0002 + the ceiling price of $115,340,593 for CLIN 0003.

To determine the awarded value of this contract, the Government will add the proposed cost and fee (or negotiated, if applicable) for CLIN 0001 and the proposed cost (or negotiated, if applicable) for CLIN 0002 to the CLIN 0003 ceiling price of $115,340,593.

7.0 ADJECTIVAL RATINGS

The Government will perform an evaluation of the Non-Cost/Price factors based on the Offeror’s proposal. This evaluation focuses on significant strengths, strengths, significant weaknesses, weaknesses, and deficiencies of the Offeror’s proposal, resulting in the assignment of an adjectival rating for each factor and subfactor. The Cost/Price Factor will not be assigned an adjectival rating.

Note: The Pass/Fail Requirements in Section L, 2.0 will not be assigned an adjectival rating, rather they will be rated as Pass or Fail as follows:

Rating Description Pass Proposal meets the requirements Fail Proposal does not meet the requirements

A “Fail” rating in the Pass/Fail requirement will result in the Offeror being determined ineligible for award.

7.1 Technical Capability Factor Rating

The following combined technical/risk rating include consideration of risk in conjunction with the significant strengths, strengths, significant weaknesses, weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings.

Adjectival Rating Description

Outstanding Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength or significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable, and/or risk of performance is unacceptably high.

Definitions:

Deficiency is a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

Risk, as it pertains to source selection, is the potential for unsuccessful contract performance. The consideration of risk assesses the degree to which an Offeror’s proposed approach to achieving the technical factor or subfactor may involve risk of disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

Strength is an aspect of an Offeror's proposal with merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the advantage of the Government during contract performance.

Weakness means a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Significant Strength is an aspect of the Offeror’s proposal with appreciable merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the considerable advantage of the Government during contract performance.

Significant Weakness in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

7.2 Past Performance Evaluation

The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror's probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements. In accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2), the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor’s performance shall be considered. These are combined to establish one performance confidence assessment rating for each offeror.

There are three (3) aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy (including context of data), and quality (including general trends in contractor performance and source of information).

(1) The first aspect of the past performance evaluation is to evaluate the recency of the offeror’s past performance. Recency is a measure of the elapsed time since the past performance reference occurred.

Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant and is critical to establishing the relevancy of past performance information.

(2) The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. Relevancy is a measure of the extent of similarity between the service/support effort, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and subcontract/ teaming or other comparable attributes of past performance examples and the solicitation requirements; and a measure of the likelihood the past performance is an indicator of future performance In establishing what is relevant for the acquisition, consideration is given to those aspects of an offeror’s history of contract (or subcontract) performance that would provide the most context and give the greatest ability to measure whether the offeror will successfully satisfy the current requirement.

Common aspects of relevancy include, but are not limited to: similarity of product/service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, use of key personnel (for services), and extent of subcontracting/teaming.

There are four (4) levels of relevancy for this requirement as listed in the table below. With respect to relevancy, more relevant past performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance.

Adjectival Ratings Description 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

(3) The third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to establish the overall quality of the offeror’s past performance (see FAR 15.304(c)(2)). The past performance evaluation conducted in support of a current source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the offeror performed those past contracts. The Government will review all past performance information collected and determine the quality of the offeror’s performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate these into the performance confidence assessment. The past performance confidence assessment rating is based on the offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance.

Performance Confidence Assessment. In conducting a performance confidence assessment, each offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings listed in the table below.

Adjectival Ratings 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.

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.