Attachment 9 - Section M Evaluation Factors.pdf

N0017325R2440

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

M-1 EVALUATION FACTORS

Basis for Award The Offerors proposal must comply in all material respects with the requirements of the law, regulation and conditions set forth in this solicitation. The proposal must meet all Solicitation requirements.

The Government anticipates a single award resulting from this solicitation. The award decision will be based on the Government's evaluation of each Offeror's complete proposal against the evaluation Factors identified below. In accordance with FAR 52.215- 1(f)(c), which provides that award will be made to the responsible Offeror(s) whose proposal represents the best overall value to the Government after evaluation based on the Factors described herein. Best value means the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the Government's estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirement (FAR 2.101). A best value analysis will not be performed or developed for any Offeror whose proposal is found to be technically unacceptable or unsatisfactory in any other factor or subfactor. A proposal receiving an unacceptable in any factor or subfactor will render the Offeror ineligible for award.

A tradeoff analysis may be used when it is in the best interest of the Government to consider award to other than the lowest Total Evaluated Price (TEP) Offeror or other than the highest technically rated Offeror. In order to select the successful Offeror, the Government will compare the Offerors proposal volumes. The comparison will trade off differences in technical capability based on the non-cost factors and cost factors. If an Offeror has the better technical capability and a higher TEP, the Government will decide whether the difference in technical capability is worth the difference in price. If it is determined that the difference in technical capability is worth the difference in price, then the more capable, higher-priced Offeror will be the better value. If not, then the less capable, lower-priced Offeror will be the better value.

The Government may limit the breadth of the cost realism analyses to those Offeror and subcontractor proposals, respectively, that represent the most likely candidates for award based on information derived from the technical evaluation and relative cost comparison. If an Offeror has a lower technical rating than competing Offerors and a higher proposed cost, the Government may elect not to perform a cost realism analysis on said Offeror's proposed cost as the cost realism analysis will only result in upward adjustments to the proposed cost thereby further removing the Offeror's proposal from the most likely candidates for award.

Award will only be made to an Offeror that has no organizational conflict of interest as defined in FAR 9.5 or that the Government determines has provided a satisfactory mitigation plan in accordance with Section L. 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 and for which an unsatisfactory mitigation plan has been proposed. Failure by an Offeror that has identified a potential OCI or to submit an OCI mitigation plan with its proposal shall no longer being considered for award. Prior to award, the Government will review any submitted OCI mitigation plan and make a determination as to whether the plan adequately meets the issues and provides adequate protection to both the company and the Government.

The Government will evaluate each Offeror's proposal in accordance with the factors contained in Section L and listed below 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 elements have been chosen to support meaningful discrimination between and among competing proposals. As demonstrated in each proposal, a prospective Offeror shall be evaluated in terms of its ability to meet or exceed the program's requirements stated in the SOW. Each proposal shall be evaluated in accordance with the factors listed in the table below:

Evaluation Factors

1. Technical Understanding, Capability, and

Approach

2. Management Capability

3. Personnel Qualifications

4. Past Performance

5. Small Business Participation

6. Cost/Price

Proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the following criteria:

Factor 1 - Technical Understanding, Capability, and Approach, Factor 2 - Management Capability, and Factor 3 - Personnel Qualifications are equally important.

Factor 1 - Technical Understanding, Capability, and Approach, Factor 2 - Management Capability, and Factor 3 - Personnel Qualifications are each more important than Factor 4 - Past Performance, Factor 5 - Small Business Participation, and Factor 6 - Cost/Price.

Factor 4- Past Performance and Factor 5- Small Business Participation are weighted equally, and when combined are more important than Factor 6 – Cost/Price.

Evaluation Factors 1-5 when combined, are significantly more important than Factor 6, Cost/Price. However, as non-price factors become closer in perceived value, price considerations will become more important. Trade-off considerations may result in the determination that it is in the best interest of the Government to award to other than the lowest priced Offeror or other than the highest technically rated Offeror.

To be considered for award, a rating of no less than “Acceptable” must be achieved for Factors 1 - 3. An “Unacceptable” evaluation rating for any factor will result in an “Unacceptable” for the entire proposal and will render the Offeror ineligible for award and no further analysis will be conducted.

Technical proposals that are unrealistic in terms of technical commitment will be deemed reflective of an inherent lack of technical competence or indicative of failure to comprehend the complexity and risk involved in the contract requirements and may be grounds for rejection of the proposal.

M-2 EVALUATION OF FACTORS

FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL UNDERSTANDING, CAPABILITY, AND APPROACH

Offerors' proposals will be evaluated on the Offeror's demonstrated understanding of the requirements in accordance with Attachment 1

- Statement of Work.

The evaluation will consist of a review of:

1. The degree to which the Offeror's technical proposal clearly demonstrates the capability, knowledge and approach, for both Prime and Subcontractors in performing all aspects of the SOW.

2. The degree to which the Offeror demonstrates an overall understanding of the scope of work and provides an approach to performing the tasks described in the RFP

3. The Offeror's size, scope, and complexity, as well as demonstrated knowledge, experience, capability, and approach (for both Prime and Subcontractors) to perform all aspects of the tasks in accordance with the Statement of Work.

4. That sufficient detail was provided to complete an accurate evaluation of the technical proposal.

5. The degree to which the Offeror's technical proposal identifies technical uncertainties and assumptions and how adequately they address the resolution of them.

6. The degree to which the Offeror has experience with relevant projects in the areas required by the SOW.

FACTOR 2: MANAGEMENT CAPABILITY:

The proposal will be evaluated on the Offerors' demonstrated capacity to routinely and rapidly respond to the general science, engineering, and support requirements of a research laboratory.

The proposal will be evaluated on the sufficiency of the Offerors' ability to accommodate program changes within the scope of the

SOW.

The proposal will be evaluated on the Offeror's management plan, which should include a description of how the different tasks can be effectively and efficiently managed with minimum demands upon Government personnel.

The proposal will also be evaluated on the Offeror's strategy for assuring a smooth and effective transition between the Offeror's proposed personnel and the incumbent's personnel into the ongoing system development, maintenance, and operations efforts.

The proposed Transition Plan will be evaluated on:

a. a plan for the transition of personnel (contractor personnel shall have the necessary skill set and be able to execute on the first day of the contract, only acclimation/gaining familiarity with NRL is allowable, there is no budget for training);

b. the transfer of work control and information;

c. complying with NRL security regulations; and

d. the method for processing and assigning tasks during the phase-in/phase-out periods.

The plan shall address how the Awardee will implement adequate measures to coordinate communications with the Awardee and NRL staff in order to ensure minimal impact during the transition process. The proposal will be evaluated on the Offeror's ability to complete all the transition activities within 90 days after contract award.

FACTOR 3: PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS

The proposals will be evaluated on the Offeror's demonstrated ability to provide personnel in accordance with Attachment 2 -

Personnel Qualifications to carry out the SOW. The evaluation will consist of a review of the personnel qualification information provided by the Offeror, specifically in the following areas:

1. The experience and qualifications of proposed key personnel;

2. The availability of all personnel to support the effort on a full-time permanent basis (for all full-time employees only); and

3. The proposed key personnel's availability to span the total requirements (60 months).

The evaluation of this factor will cover the qualifications of all proposed KEY personnel and the availability of all other proposed personnel; missing a minimum or required qualification shall be deemed as a deficiency.

The proposed Staffing Plan will be evaluated on:

1. Completeness of proposed labor category taskings and cross referencing of labor categories to the appropriate SOW tasking's.

2. Offeror's proposed mapping of any company-specific labor categories with solicitation labor categories and their requirements/qualifications, if applicable.

3. Offeror's Proposed key personnel’s knowledge and capabilities to execute the proposed technical approach.

4. How the Offeror's proposed team provides the optimal balance between size, manageability, and support capability while maintaining an integrated approach.

5. Completeness of contingent hire documentation.

All key personnel are required to have a TS-SCI at the time of proposal submission.

M-3 EVALUATION RATING CRITERIA

(1) FACTOR 1,2, and 3: TECHNICAL/MANAGEMENT/PERSONNEL CAPABILITY ADJECTIVAL RATINGS

The Government will perform an analysis of the three technical factors: Factor 1- Technical Understanding, Capability, and Approach, Factor 2 – Management Capability, and Factor 3 – Personnel Qualifications, and assign an adjectival rating to each factor as identified below. This evaluation focuses on strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, deficiencies, and risks of the Offeror's proposal, resulting in the assignment of an adjectival rating at the factor level. Risk assessments will be performed as to the risk of successful performance within each factor. Responses will be evaluated in terms of quality, depth, and relevance of information presented in response to this solicitation. It should be noted that proposals found to be unacceptable in any non-cost factor may result in the entire proposal being deemed Unacceptable.

The following adjectival ratings and rating definitions will be used for each of the three technical factors 1,2, and 3.

Table 1. Evaluation Definitions

Term Definition

Strength an aspect of an offeror's proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance

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

Significant Weakness a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance

Deficiency 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

Table 2. Combined Technical/Risk Ratings to be used for Factors 1, 2, and 3:

Color Rating

Adjectival

Description

Blue

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.

Purple

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.

Green

Acceptable

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

Yellow

Marginal

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

Red

Unacceptable

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

Only One Offeror Evaluation Criteria:

In the event only one proposal is received in response to the solicitation, the evaluation criteria for the Technical Factor will change to the following:

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

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

M-4 FACTOR 4: PAST PERFORMANCE

Past performance is a measure of the degree to which the Offeror satisfied its customers in previous relevant contracts and complied with Federal, State, and local laws and regulations.

The Government will evaluate CPAR reports, Past Performance Questionnaires and Previous Contract Effort Narratives, and may contact some of each Offeror's customers to ask whether or not they believe: (1) that the Offeror is capable, efficient and effective; (2) that the Offeror's performance conformed to the terms and conditions of its contract; (3) that the Offeror was reasonable and cooperative during performance; (4) that the Offeror was committed to customer satisfaction; and (5) if given a chance would they select the same or a different Contractor.

The Government may consider past performance information obtained from sources other than those identified by the Offeror, including Federal, State, and local Government agencies, Better Business Bureaus, published media and electronic databases. The lack of recent and relevant past performance information will result in the assignment of a neutral rating (i.e. neither favorable nor unfavorable) for this factor.

(1) Past Performance Evaluation The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the Contractor's probability of meeting the solicitation requirements, The past performance evaluation considers each Contractor's demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the Government's requirements. One performance confidence assessment rating is assigned for each Contractor after evaluating the Contractor's recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the Government's requirements.

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. Recency: The first aspect is to evaluate the recency of the Offeror's past performance. 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. Offerors shall provide Past Performance references from the past five (5) fiscal years. Include any current contracts or subcontracts for similar services that were awarded at least one year prior to the date of this solicitation. Contractors that have no similar previous or current awards should provide the following information for proposed subcontract that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement.

1. Name of contracting organization.

2. Contract number

3. Contract type

4. Total contract value

5. Description of the contract work

6. Contracting officer and telephone number

7. Contracting officer's representative, program manager, or similar official and telephone number

2. Relevancy: 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. Present/past performance effort should demonstrate scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. In establishing what is relevant for the acquisition, consideration should be given to those aspects of a Contractor's contract history that would give the greatest ability to measure whether the Contractor will satisfy the current procurement. Common aspects of relevancy include similarity of service/support, complexity; dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming. Relevancy ratings are based on the definitions below:

Table 3: Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

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. Quality: 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 performed in support of a current source selection does not establish, create or change the existing record and history of the Contractor's past performance on previous contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the Contractor performed on those previous contracts.

Sources of Past Performance Information for Evaluation are as follows:

Past Performance information may be provided by the Contractor, as solicited Past Performance information may be obtained from questionnaires tailored to the circumstances of the acquisition Past performance information shall be obtained from any other sources available to the Government to include, but not limited to, Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System

(FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases, interviews with Program Mangers, Contracting Officer's and Contracting Officer Representatives, Expert Technical Representatives and the Defense Contract Management Agency.

Performance Confidence Assessment: 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 a Performance Confidence Assessment. A separate quality assessment rating is not required; rather, the Past Performance Confidence Assessment rating is based on the Offeror's overall record of Recency, Relevancy, and Quality of performance.

Performance Confidence Assessment ratings are as follows:

Table 4: Performance Confidence Ratings

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

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

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

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

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.

M-5 FACTOR 5: SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION

(1) Offerors completion of the Small Business Participation Plan (Section J, RFP Attachment 5) will be evaluated based on the following descriptions. As part of this evaluation, the Government will consider each offeror's commitment to use small business:

a) To be acceptable, the offeror must demonstrate a plan to meet or exceed its goals for the participation of small business firms (including those in socioeconomic categories as defined in FAR Part 19) in terms of the percentage and dollars of the total acquisition value. If the offeror submits less than the minimum goals in any of the categories, the offeror shall provide a detailed explanation and address how the offeror will attempt to increase small business subcontracting in any category where the proposed goal is less than the minimum subcontracting goal

b) To be acceptable, the offeror must describe its use of small businesses in terms of the complexity and variety of work to be performed.

c) To be acceptable, the offeror must describe the type of agreements and/or commitments to use small business firms under the contract.

d) To be acceptable, the offeror must explain the specific initiatives and strategies that will be used under the contract to enhance small business utilization and capabilities.

e) To be acceptable, the offeror must describe the process used to ensure the proper flow down of requirements, process management and performance assessments of small business utilization at the first tier.

(2) The Government will assess the offeror's submission to this factor for adequacy of proposed Small Business Participation. To be acceptable, the offeror shall provide a complete and responsive small business participation volume and will be assigned adjectival ratings in accordance with the Table below. In accordance with 13 C.F.R. 125.3(g)(3), a small business concern submitting an offer will be rated Acceptable for this Small Business Participation Factor, even if they elect not to submit any information in connection with this factor.

The following adjectival ratings/descriptions shall be used for the Small Business Participation evaluation factor:

Table 5: SBP Ratings

Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives.

Proposal does not indicate an adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives.

M-6 FACTOR 6: COST/PRICE

(1) Although cost or price is not scored, numerically weighted, or combined with the other evaluation factors to establish an adjectival rating, it will be evaluated for reasonableness and realism. Cost realism is a determination of the probable cost of performance for each Offeror.

The degree of importance of the cost or price factor will increase with the degree of equality of the proposals in relation to the other factors on which selection is to be based.

Proposals which are unrealistic in terms of technical or schedule commitments or unrealistically high or low in cost may be deemed reflective of an inherent lack of technical competence, or indicative of a failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the proposed work, and may be grounds for rejection of the proposal.

In evaluating cost type offers, realism of the Offeror's estimated cost will be considered. "Realism of Estimated Cost" is determined by reference to the costs which the Offerors can reasonably be expected to incur in performance of the Contract in accordance with the offer. Therefore, in addition to generating a probable cost for each cost reimbursement CLIN based on the Offeror's proposed approach (i.e., the CLIN's evaluated cost), this cost realism analysis may identify areas of cost realism risk where no substantiating cost realism data supports the proposed costs such as proposals that include unrealistically low labor rates or that do not otherwise demonstrate cost realism.

The purpose of the evaluation is to: (1) verify the Offerors' understanding of the requirements; (2) assess the degree to which the cost proposal reflects the approaches and/or risk that the Offerors will provide the supplies or services at the proposed costs; and (3) assess the degree to which the cost included in the cost proposal accurately represents the effort described in the technical proposal. The proposed costs may be adjusted for purposes of evaluation based on the results of the cost realism evaluation. Unrealistic rates will be considered in the risk assessment and may result in a reduced technical rating.

(2) It is intended to reimburse support and subcontract costs on the basis of actual reasonable and allowable costs incurred plus G&A. The Offeror shall propose the total plug amount listed in Section B, which is inclusive of indirect rates.

If proposed indirect rates on support and subcontract costs are not consistent with DCAA information for that Offerors, the proposed rates may be adjusted for realism when applied for evaluation purposes.

Evaluation of FAR 52.217-8 pricing: The pricing for this will be evaluated consistent with the evaluation of the rest of the proposal. The price of this evaluation, however, will not be included in the Government's total evaluated cost, and will not be included in the award amount.

M-7 COMPETITIVE RANGE DETERMINATION AND DISCUSSIONS

The Government intends to make award without discussions. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed necessary. If conducted, discussions will be IAW FAR 15.306.

If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

M-8 SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as factors. 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. Offerors failure to complete or omission of required data for evaluation or award may make them ineligible for award evaluation and/or subsequent contract award.

M-9 DISCUSSION/FINAL PROPOSAL REVISIONS.

If discussions are held, the Contracting Officer shall indicate to, or discuss with, each Offerors still being considered for award, significant weaknesses, deficiencies, and other aspects of its proposal (such as cost, price, technical approach, past performance, and terms and conditions) that could, in the opinion of the Contracting Officer, be altered or explained to enhance materially the proposal's potential for award.

The scope and extent of discussions are a matter of Contracting Officer judgment. At the conclusion of discussions, each Offerors still in the competitive range shall be given an opportunity to submit a final proposal revision. A final cut-off date for receipt of final proposal revisions will be established by the Contracting Officer.

(1) The Contract(s) resulting from this solicitation will be awarded to the responsible Offerors(s) whose offer(s), conforming to the solicitation, is determined most advantageous to the Government, cost and other factors considered.

M-10 ONLY ONE OFFEROR

In the event that only one proposal is received, the Government reserves the right to conduct a less formal evaluation of the proposal. A technical analysis of the proposal will be performed to determine the extent in which it meets the elements/requirements contained in the evaluation factors for award.

FAR Clauses Incorporated by Full Text

52.217-3 Evaluation Exclusive of Options. (Apr 1984)

As prescribed in 17.208(a), insert a provision substantially the same as in the following in solicitations when the solicitation includes an option clause and does not include one of the provisions prescribed in 17.208 (b) or (c):

EVALUATION EXCLUSIVE OF OPTIONS (APR 1984)

The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by including only the price for the basic requirement; i.e., options will not be included in the evaluation for award purposes.

(End of provision)