Attachment E Evaluation Factors for Award.pdf

Page 1 of

ATTACHMENT E: EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD:

1.0 Award without Discussions

1.1) GENERAL INFORMATION: The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions. Therefore, Offerors shall submit their best terms from a technical standpoint, as Offerors may not be afforded an opportunity to revise their proposals. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting officer later determines them to be necessary. In accordance with FAR 15.306(d), discussion sessions with each Offeror may be held. Should discussions take place, all Offerors in the competitive range will be allowed a minimum of 7 calendar days after completion of discussions to submit Final Proposal Revisions.

1.2) DISCUSSION SCHEDULING: If discussions are conducted, the Contracting Officer will schedule the discussion sessions, and each Offeror will be notified of the time and place at least three (3) business days prior to their discussion session. Should access to secure NASA facilities be required, the Offerors should provide appropriate security clearance information in sufficient time to process the access requirements. The Procuring Contracting Officer will provide additional instructions with the notification.

2.0 SOURCE SELECTION GENERAL

2.1) GENERAL: The proposals will be evaluated using procedures prescribed by the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and the NASA FAR Supplement (NFS).

2.2) SOURCE SELECTION: The proposals will be evaluated by a Source Evaluation Team (SET) appointed by the Source Selection Authority (SSA). The SET will be supported by subject matter experts during the evaluation. The SET is tasked with conducting a thorough and impartial evaluation of each proposal received and reporting those evaluation results to the SSA. It is the responsibility of the SSA to make the final source selection decision.

2.3) SOURCE SELECTION AUTHORITY: The SSA for this procurement is the NASA Shared Services Center Chief of Procurement Services.

3.0 52.212-2 Evaluation-Commercial Items (OCT 2014)

(a) The Government will award multiple contracts resulting from this solicitation to responsible offerors whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, all factors considered. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

In accordance with FAR 15.304(c)(1)(ii)(A) the Government intends to issue a Multiple Award IDIQ contract to each qualifying offeror. The Government, at its discretion, has elected to exclude the evaluation of price for the multiple award IDIQ contracts and instead will consider price as part of its evaluation criteria for any resultant task orders issued under any contract resulting from the solicitation.

Following a determination of technical acceptability, proposals will be evaluated for Past Performance.

Factors to be evaluated:

Non-Price Factors

1. Technical

Page 2 of

a. AICPA Peer Review Letter

b. CASS Technical Verification Questionnaire

c. Product Work Sample 1 Incurred Cost Audit with Corresponding Audit Program

d. Product Work Sample 2 with Corresponding Audit Program

2. Past Performance

(b) Options. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

(c) A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer’s specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

(End of provision)

ADDENDUM TO 52.212-2 EVALUATION-COMMERCIAL ITEMS (OCT 2014)

A. Evaluation Criteria for Award

This selection will be conducted in accordance with FAR and NASA FAR Supplement Part 15 and FAR 15.304(c)(1)(ii)(A). The Government intends to issue a Multiple Award IDIQ contract award to each offeror who is determined by the SET to be technically acceptable and has a past performance Level of Confidence rating other than “Very Low” (See Attachment E TABLE C-2. Performance Confidence Assessments). Evaluation will be performed in accordance with the evaluation factors and instructions set forth in this Request for Proposal. By submission of its offer in accordance with the instructions provided in provision FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors - Commercial Items, the Offeror accedes to the terms of this model contract.

Pursuant to NFS 1815.300-70(a)(1)(ii), this source selection will not use a mission suitability factor and numerical scoring. The Technical factors will be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis. The Government intends to award contracts without discussions. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary.

A Source Evaluation Team (SET), in accordance with NFS 1815.3, will evaluate proposals received in response to this solicitation. The SET will determine the acceptability of technical proposals and evaluate Past Performance for those proposals determined to be technically acceptable. The evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

B. EVALUATION APPROACH

The SET will evaluate all proposals using the following evaluation approach:

FACTOR 1. TECHNICAL

SUB-FACTOR A. AICPA PEER REVIEW LETTER

SUB-FACTOR B. CASS TECHNICAL VERIFICATION QUESTIONAIRE

SUB-FACTOR C. PRODUCT WORK SAMPLE 1 INCURRED COST AUDIT WITH

CORRESPONDING AUDIT PROGRAM

Page 3 of

SUB-FACTOR D. PRODUCT WORK SAMPLE 2 WITH CORRESPONDING AUDIT PROGRAM

Step 1 – The SET will use the AICPA Peer Review Letter results to initiate its technical evaluation of Sub-Factor 1a. Proposals will be evaluated using the AICPA Peer Review Letter as either "Pass" or "Fail” based on the results as stated in the Peer Review Letter. Those proposals that provide an AICPA Peer Review Letter with results of “Pass with Deficiencies”, “Fail”, or fail to provide an AICPA Peer Review Letter shall be found technically unacceptable and will be eliminated from further evaluation.

Step 2 – For proposals determined technically acceptable in Step 1, the SET will then use the CASS Technical Verification Questionnaire results to continue its technical evaluation of Sub-Factor 1b. The CASS Technical Verification Questionnaire will be evaluated as technically unacceptable if the Offeror has not successfully performed the required audits stated on the questionnaire. The proposals that do not meet the requirements as indicated on the questionnaire or failure to provide the questionnaire shall be found technically unacceptable and will be eliminated from further evaluation.

Step 3 – For proposals determined technically acceptable in Steps 1 and 2, the SET will then evaluate Sub-Factor 1c. Product Work Sample 1 “Incurred Cost Audit with Corresponding Audit Program” will then be evaluated for technical acceptability. Proposals will be evaluated as “acceptable” or “unacceptable” based on the criteria in Table A-1 Product Work Sample – Audit Report and Table B-1 Product Work Sample - Audit Program. Proposals rated, as “unacceptable” will be eliminated from further evaluation.

Step 4 – For proposals determined technically acceptable in Steps 1, 2, and 3, the SET will then evaluate Sub-Factor 1d. Product Work Sample 2 with Corresponding Audit Program will then be evaluated for technical acceptability. Proposals will be evaluated as “acceptable” or “unacceptable” based on the criteria in Table A-1 Product Work Sample – Audit Report and Table B-1 Product Work Sample - Audit Program. Proposals rated, as “unacceptable” will be eliminated from further consideration.

Step 5 – For proposals determined to be technically acceptable in Steps 1, 2, 3, and 4, the SET will evaluate Past Performance that is recent and relevant to the solicitation. Proposals evaluated with a Level of Confidence of “Very High”, “High”, “Moderate”, “Low”, and “Neutral” will receive a Multiple Award IDIQ contract. Proposals evaluated with a “Very Low” Level of Confidence will not receive a Multiple Award IDIQ contract.

Step 6 –The SET will report its evaluation results to the Source Selection Authority (SSA), who is responsible for making the source selection decision.

Evaluation and Rating Guidelines: The Government shall not award to an Offeror that receives an Unacceptable rating for any Technical Factor.

PRODUCT WORK SAMPLES 1 AND 2 WILL BE RATED AS FOLLOWS

A. The SET will evaluate the Offeror’s product work samples for technical acceptability to ensure the Audit Report sample addresses all four elements identified below:

1. The objectives, scope, and methodology of the audit;

Page 4 of

2. The audit results, including findings, conclusions, and recommendations, as appropriate;

3. A statement about the auditors’ compliance with GAGAS;

4. A summary of the views of responsible contractor official(s)

TABLE A-1. Product Work Sample – Audit Report

Rating Description

Acceptable Work Product Samples address all four elements

Unacceptable Work Product Samples do not address all four elements

B. The SET will evaluate the Offeror’s product work samples for technical acceptability to ensure the Audit Program sample addresses all six elements identified below:

1. Purpose and Scope – Describes the overall purpose and scope of the audit

2. References – Provides references to key audit guidance

3. Audit Planning Considerations – Describes the key considerations when planning the audit

4. Preliminary Audit Steps – Includes steps to assess adequacy of the contractor’s submission (if any), obtain familiarity with the submission or audit area, assess and summarize risk (including the assessment of the contractor’s internal controls) to establish the specific audit objectives, and to accomplish the entrance conference

5. Detailed Audit Steps (Field Work) – Includes tailored audit steps based on risk and the specific audit objectives to gather and analyze evidence to serve as a basis for the audit opinion

6. Concluding Audit Steps – Includes steps to summarize the results of the audit, prepare the audit report, conduct and document the exit conference, update the permanent files, and other concluding steps as necessary

TABLE B-1. Product Work Sample - Audit Program

Acceptable Audit Program addresses the six elements

Unacceptable Audit Program does not address the six elements

FACTOR 2. PAST PERFORMANCE

AN OFFEROR’S PAST PERFORMANCE WILL BE EVALUATED AS FOLLOWS:

Evaluation and Rating Guidelines:

Past performance indicates how an Offeror performed on recent work, and can be a significant indicator of how that firm can be expected to perform the work at hand. “Recent” is defined as contract

Page 5 of performance occurring within three (3) years of the issuance of the solicitation. “Relevant” is defined as contract performance comparable in scope, complexity, and magnitude of the statement of work in the solicitation.

This evaluation factor will be used to evaluate an Offeror’s Past Performance, including its relevant experience (Table C-1) that shall be within three (3) years of the RFP release date. Past Performance is not numerically weighted or scored, but will receive an adjectival rating per Table C-2. The Government’s evaluation will be based on information provided by Offerors in their proposals, responses received on the Past Performance Questionnaire, CPARS, GAO and/or IG report findings, as well as any other information obtained independently by the Government.

As described in FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv), an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available will receive a neutral rating on past performance.

The Government may contact organizations for which an Offeror has previously performed work to obtain performance appraisals. The Government may also use data from the Government-wide Past Performance Database.

The Offeror’s past performance relevancy will rated as follows:

Table C-1. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Rating Definition

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat

Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

The Offeror’s past performance level of confidence will be rated as follows:

TABLE C-2. Performance Confidence Assessments

Very High

Level of

Confidence

The offeror’s relevant past performance is of exceptional merit and is very highly pertinent to this acquisition, indicates exemplary performance in a timely, efficient, and economical manner and very minor (if any) problems with no adverse effect on overall performance. Based on the offeror’s performance record, there is a very high level of confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Page 6 of

High Level of

Confidence

The offeror’s relevant past performance is highly pertinent to this acquisition;

demonstrating very effective performance that would be fully responsive to contract requirements. Offeror’s past performance indicates that contract requirements were accomplished in a timely, efficient, and economical manner for the most part, with only minor problems that had little identifiable effect on overall performance. Based on the offeror’s performance record, there is a high level of confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Moderate

Confidence

The offeror’s relevant past performance is pertinent to this acquisition, and it demonstrates effective performance. Performance was fully responsive to contract requirements; there may have been reportable problems, but with little identifiable effect on overall performance. Based on the offeror’s performance record, there is a moderate level of confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Low Level of

Confidence

The offeror’s relevant past performance is at least somewhat pertinent to this acquisition, and it meets or slightly exceeds minimum acceptable standards. Offeror achieved adequate results; there may have been reportable problems with identifiable, but not substantial, effects on overall performance. Based on the offeror’s performance record, there is a low level of confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Changes to the offeror’s existing processes may be necessary in order to achieve contract requirements.

Very Low

Confidence

The offeror’s relevant past performance does not meet minimum acceptable standards in one or more areas; remedial action was required in one or more areas. Performance problems occurred in one or more areas which, adversely affected overall performance.

Based on the offeror’s performance record, there is a very low level of confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral

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 may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a) (2) (ii) and (iv)).

Adverse Past Performance is past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating from sources where the information is from other formal rating systems such as “FAPIIS” (Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System).