Attachment 9 - Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award.pdf

Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI)

FA3002-21-R-0024, Candidate Development Support Services (CDSS) III Section J – Attachment 9

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

M. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1. GENERAL INFORMATION

M.1.1. Basis for contract award. This is a competitive, best value, Subjective Tradeoff source selection that will be conducted in accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15.3, Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Part 215.3, Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS) Part 5315.3, and the Department of Defense Source Selection Procedures dated 31 March 2016. The Offeror’s proposal shall include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L. A proposal that omits information may be excluded from further consideration. The Source Selection Authority (SSA) will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation. Evaluation factors are comprised of: (1) Past Performance, (2) Technical Capability, and (3) Price.

M.1.1.1. The Government will utilize the Subjective Tradeoff evaluation methodology whereby Past Performance may be traded for Price if, following an evaluation of Technical Capability, the proposal is determined to be "Technically Acceptable". This may result in an award being made to a higher priced Offeror where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the SSA determines that the past performance superiority of the higher priced Offeror outweighs the price difference.

M.1.1.1.1. The Government will evaluate past performance first. An Offeror that is determined to have a Performance Confidence rating of “Limited Confidence” or “No Confidence” will not be considered for award, nor will the Government evaluate Price or Technical Capability for any Offeror rated as having “Limited Confidence” or “No Confidence”.

M.1.1.1.2. Second, the Government will rank proposals (low to high) by their Total Evaluated Price (TEP) for Offerors determined to have a Performance Confidence rating of "Substantial Confidence", “Satisfactory Confidence”, or “Neutral Confidence”. The Government will evaluate the Technical Capability of the proposal that represents the lowest TEP first. If the Offeror is determined to be “Technically Acceptable”, but does not have a Performance Confidence rating of "Substantial Confidence", the government will continue evaluating proposals and evaluate the next ranked (Price) proposal. If an Offeror meets the criteria of having “Substantial Confidence”, the lowest TEP (is determined to be fair and reasonable), and is determined to be “Technically Acceptable”, that Offeror represents the best value to the Government and award will be made to that Offeror.

M.1.1.1.3. The Government may trade up from a Performance Confidence rating of “Neutral Confidence” or “Satisfactory Confidence”, resulting in an award being made to a higher priced “Technically Acceptable” Offeror, if that Offeror’s proposal is determined to represent the best value to the Government by the SSA.

M.1.1.2. A contract will be awarded to the Offeror who is deemed responsible IAW FAR 9.104 as supplemented, and whose:

(1) Proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements;

(2) All proposed technical subfactors receive “Acceptable” ratings;

(3) Proposal receives a Performance Confidence assessment rating of “Substantial Confidence”, “Satisfactory Confidence”, or “Neutral Confidence”;

(4) Proposed Price is determined fair and reasonable; and

(5) Proposal is determined by the SSA to represent the best value to the Government.

M.1.2. Number of Contracts to be Awarded. The Government will award a single Firm-Fixed- Price (FFP) contract with a Cost Reimbursable not-to-exceed Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) for travel costs, for the Candidate Development Support Services (CDSS) III.

M.2. AWARD WITH DISCUSSIONS

M.2.1. Competitive Range. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest. In order to conduct discussions, a competitive range will be established based on FAR 15.306(c) procedures and this solicitation. If the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) determines and the SSA agrees 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 PCO, with the SSA’s approval, 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.

Therefore, the Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. If the PCO determines, and the SSA agrees, that an Offeror’s proposal should no longer be included in the competitive range, the proposal will be eliminated from consideration for award. Written notice of this decision will be provided to unsuccessful Offeror(s) IAW FAR 15.503(a)(1). Offerors excluded or otherwise eliminated from the competitive range may request and receive a Preaward Debriefing IAW FAR 15.505 or a Postaward Debriefing after receiving notification of contract award IAW FAR 15.506. NOTE: Offerors excluded or removed from the competitive range are only entitled to a single debriefing IAW FAR 15.505(a)(3).

M.2.2. Discussions. IAW FAR 52.215-1(f)(4), the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions. Therefore, the Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the PCO later determines it to be in the best interest of the Government.

Offerors shall submit the required information in the format specified in Section L, Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors or Respondents. Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their technical, past performance, or price volumes. Exchanges conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors in any of the proposal volumes will not constitute discussions, and the PCO reserves the right to award a contract without granting an opportunity to revise the original proposal.

M.2.2.1. If discussions are held, Offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. If the Offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the FPR are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the Offeror’s proposal will be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

M.3. Evaluation Factors for Award. Evaluation of offers will be made IAW the criteria outlined in this section. The proposals will be evaluated against the following three (3) factors:

Volume I/Factor I: Past Performance Volume II/Factor II: Technical Capability

Subfactor 1: Phase-In/Phase-Out Plan (Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating) Subfactor 2: Quality Control Plan (Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating)

Volume III/Factor III: Price

M.3.1. Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors. Technical will be evaluated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis, and Past Performance is significantly more important than Price.

However, Price is a substantial factor in the selection decision. Both Technical Subfactors are equal in importance. An Offeror must be rated Acceptable in both Technical Subfactors, have a “Neutral”, “Satisfactory Confidence” or “Substantial Confidence” rating, and Price must be determined fair and reasonable to be eligible for award.

M.4. VOLUME I/FACTOR I – PAST PERFORMANCE

M.4.1. The Government will evaluate past performance to assess how well the Offeror has performed work relevant to the requirement described in the solicitation as an indicator of an Offeror’s ability to perform the contract successfully. The Offeror’s past performance efforts will be assessed for three categories: Recency, Relevancy, and Performance Quality.

M.4.1.2. Evaluation Process. The past performance evaluation considers each Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance. The Government will only evaluate performance quality on past efforts that are determined to be both recent and relevant.

Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level after evaluating the Offeror’s recent and relevant past performance.

The Government reserves the right to use the information provided in the Offeror’s past performance proposal volume and may also use information obtained from other sources available to the Government. The past performance evaluation will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to this acquisition.

M.4.2. Recency Assessment. Contract performance that does not meet the defined recency criteria will not be evaluated.

M.4.3. Relevancy Assessment. The Government will conduct a thorough evaluation of recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the services performed under those contracts relate to the scope, magnitude and complexity of efforts described in this solicitation. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, greater consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort related to candidate development comparable to the PWS requirements in terms of scope, magnitude, and complexity. The Government may give greater weight to performance on contracts deemed more relevant to the effort described in this solicitation. The Government will use the following DoD Source Selection Procedures relevancy definitions:

RELEVANCY ASSESSMENT

Rating 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.

M.4.4. Performance Quality Assessment. The performance quality assessment consists of an evaluation of past performance information available on recent and relevant efforts, regardless of its source. The quality assessment may reveal positive or adverse past performance information.

Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources. Offerors will be given an opportunity to respond to adverse past performance information for which they have not previously had an opportunity to address.

The quality assessment performed in support of this source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the Offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, it gathers information from customers on how well the Offeror performed those past contracts. The following ratings will be used to define the quality of submitted past performance.

PERFORMANCE

/ QUALITY

RATING

DEFINITION

Exceptional

Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many requirements to the Government’s benefit. The performance of the element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

Very Good

Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some requirements to the Government’s benefit. The performance of the element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

Satisfactory

Performance meets contractual requirements. The performance of the element being assessed contained some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

Marginal

Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The performance of the element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions or the contractor’s actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

Unsatisfactory

Performance does not meet most requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The performance of the element being assessed contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

Not Applicable Unable to provide a score. Performance in this area is not applicable to the effort assessed.

M.4.5. Performance Confidence Assessment Rating. As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, Offerors will receive an integrated Performance Confidence Assessment Rating. The Performance Confidence Assessment Rating represents the overall evaluation of contractor past performance. An Offeror without a record of recent/relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably, and, as a result, will receive a “Neutral Confidence” rating for the Past Performance factor.

A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a “Neutral Confidence” rating. Likewise, a more relevant, favorable past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record or less favorable performance.

The Past Performance factor will receive one of the following performance confidence assessment ratings described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, Performance Confidence Assessment, below:

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT

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.

NEUTRAL CONFIDENCE (UNKNOWN)

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.

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.

M.5. VOLUME II/FACTOR II – TECHNICAL CAPABILITY

M.5.1. The Government will assign a rating of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” for each subfactor.

Any technical subfactor evaluated as “Unacceptable” will render the entire proposal unacceptable and, therefore, ineligible for award. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. However, the Offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussions.

TECHNICAL CAPABILITY RATING METHOD

Rating Description ACCEPTABLE Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

UNACCEPTABLE Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

M.5.2. Subfactor 1 – Phase-In/Phase-Out Plan. This subfactor assesses the Offeror’s Phase- In/Phase-Out Plan. The Offeror has met the requirement for an acceptable Phase-In/Phase-Out plan when the proposed plan meets the following:

Subfactor 1 – Phase-In/Phase Out Plan Instructions to Offeror Evaluation Criteria L.4.2.4.1 Provide a detailed approach that thoroughly outlines critical elements to ensure a successful transition between contractors during phase in and out that details timelines, processes and strategies: including but not limited to: personnel recruiting, qualifying, training, and certifying during the 60 calendar day phase-in/phase-out period that results in sufficient numbers of fully qualified employees on location; including graphical time-line that addresses start and completion of each event (e.g., interviewing, hiring, human resource actions, training, and start work dates).

M.5.2.1. Provided a detailed approach that thoroughly outlines critical elements to ensure a successful transition between contractors during phase in and out that details timelines, processes and strategies: including but not limited to: personnel recruiting, qualifying, training, and certifying during the 60 calendar day phase-in/phase-out period that results in sufficient numbers of fully qualified employees on location; including graphical time-line that addresses start and completion of each event (e.g., interviewing, hiring, human resource actions, training, and start work dates).

M.5.3. Subfactor 2 – Quality Control Plan. This subfactor assesses the Offeror’s approaches and processes to effectively measure, track, analyze, report, and implement corrective actions at the sites specified in the RFP. The Quality Control Plan submitted in response to this subfactor shall address performance standards and control of information. The Offeror has met the requirement for an acceptable Quality Control Plan when the proposed plan meets the following:

Subfactor 2 – Quality Control Plan Instructions to Offeror Evaluation Criteria L.4.2.5.1. Present a Quality Control Plan for your organization, including lines of authority, and provide a plan that will successfully evaluate compliance, find and document problems, and monitor corrective actions ensuring successful and timely problem resolution. Explain how recurring problems will be prevented.

M.5.3.1. Presented a comprehensive Quality Control Plan, including lines of authority, and provided a reasonable and effective plan that will successfully evaluate compliance, find and document problems, and monitor corrective actions, ensuring successful and timely problem resolution while adequately explaining how recurring problems will be prevented.

L.4.2.5.2. Describe a system for recording, computing/assessing performance measurement data, and monitoring corrective actions to ensure successful and timely problem resolution.

M.5.3.2. Described a reasonable and effective system process that is sufficient for recording, computing/assessing performance measurement data, and monitoring corrective actions to ensure successful and timely problem resolution.

L.4.2.5.3. Describe the documents and records your company will develop, maintain, and utilize as part of the Quality Control Plan.

M.5.3.3. Adequately described the documents and records that will be developed, maintained, and utilized as part of the Quality Control Plan.

L.4.2.5.4. Describe the method for gathering information, evaluating performance based on the requirements of the PWS, and reporting the results to the Government.

M.5.3.4. Described a reasonable and effective method for gathering information, evaluating performance based on the requirements of the PWS, and reporting the results to the Government.

M.6. VOLUME III/FACTOR III – PRICE EVALUATION

M.6.1. The Government will evaluate the price information submitted in each Offeror’s price proposal as described below. Any other data provided by the Offeror with their price proposal that is not required by Section L will not be considered or evaluated.

M.6.2. Price Reasonableness. The price information submitted in each Offeror’s price proposal, as required by Section L, will be evaluated to determine if proposed prices are fair, reasonable and balanced IAW FAR 15.404. A contract will not be awarded to an Offeror whose price is not determined to be fair and reasonable.

M.6.2.1. The Government may use any of the following price analysis techniques IAW FAR 15.404-1(b) to determine price reasonableness: Comparison of proposed prices received;

comparison of proposed prices to previous Government and commercial contract prices for the same or similar services; use of parametric estimating methods/rough yardsticks; comparison with competitive published price lists or market prices; comparison with Independent Government Cost Estimates; comparison with prices obtained through market research for the same or similar services; and/or analysis of pricing information provided by the Offeror.

M.6.2.2. In addition, proposed unit prices may be evaluated for unbalanced pricing IAW FAR 15.404-1(g). Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable Total Evaluated Price (TEP), the price of one or more contract line items or sub-line item(s) appear to be significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. An Offeror’s proposal may be rejected if the PCO determines the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

M.6.2.3. If the proposal analysis techniques listed above are insufficient to make a determination of price reasonableness, or, if the CO determines that adequate price competition no longer exists, the PCO may request submission of certified cost or pricing data (or data other than certified cost or pricing data), as appropriate, and may use other proposal analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404, to the extent necessary, in order to make a determination of price reasonableness.

M.6.3. TEP. A TEP will be presented to the SSA for award decision purposes. The Price Proposal Spreadsheet (Section J, Attachment 5) will calculate the Offeror’s TEP for all FFP CLINs. The TEP will not include the Not-To-Exceed cost-reimbursable CLINs. The price evaluation will document the reasonableness of the proposed TEP. NOTE: The contract will include FAR Clause 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services, with the potential to extend the contract an additional 6 months beyond the awarded contract performance period. In the event the Government requires continued performance, the Government's evaluation of prices proposed for the base and all option periods will suffice to be the Government's evaluation of prices under the extension of services (ref. 52.217-8). Should an extension of services be required, rates will be adjusted only as result of revisions to applicable prevailing Department of Labor wage rates.

M.7. Responsibility Determination. Responsibility Information is not an evaluation factor.

However, a contract may only be awarded to an Offeror who is deemed responsible IAW FAR

9.104. The Contracting Officer may use any sources available to support their determination of an Offeror’s responsibility or non-responsibility, to include, but not be limited to, Volume III (Price) information, Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) or other databases;

interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, Fee-Determining Officials; and the Defense Contract Management Agency.