Attachment E - Evaluation Procedures_Evaluation Factors for Award_19AQMM22R0202.docx

ATTACHMENT E

M-001 - PROPOSAL EVALUATION/EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

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

M.1 Evaluation Overview and Advisory Down-Selection

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

Between Stage I and Stage II, each Offeror will receive an Advisory Notification, as described in Section L of this solicitation.

Note:

1) The Advisory Notification is the only notice the Government will provide from Stage I; debriefings will not occur at the end of Stage I.

2) Participation in Stage I is a mandatory part of this acquisition. Failure to participate in Stage I will preclude further consideration of the Offeror’s proposal. Stage II submissions will not be accepted from any Offeror who has not participated in Stage I.

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

In selecting the successful Offeror, the Government will use the best value/tradeoff source selection process, as defined in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.101-1 Tradeoff Process. Award will be made to the Offeror deemed responsible in accordance with FAR Subpart 9.1 and whose proposal conforms to solicitation requirements and is determined to provide the best value to the Government.

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

M.2 Initial Receipt and Screening

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

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

L.5 Go/No-Go Initial Screening: Required Qualifications Instructions

Please submit a response confirming that the PRIME offeror meets each individual required qualification below. The Prime cannot rely on any proposed team members (Subcontractors or teaming partners) to meet the Go/No-Go requirements. Note: If Offeror does not meet these Go/No-Go requirements, Offeror will not advance to Stage I. Responses to Go/No-Go requirements are excluded from word and page limit requirements.

1) Offerors shall be certified at the CMMI Development – Level 3 or higher and the CMMI Service – Level 3 or higher (both). Proof must be provided with Phase 1 submission.

2) Offerors shall be ISO 9001 certified and provide proof of such certification with their Phase 1 submission.

3) The Offeror (prime) must submit a valid proof of an FCL at the FINAL TOP SECRET level. Offerors shall provide a National Industrial Security System (NISS) facility verification notification as evidence of the Offeror’s FCL. Offeror(s) without proof of an active TOP SECRET FCL will be eliminated from competition. With regard to Joint Ventures (JV) at least one of the partners comprising the JV must possess a FINAL TOP SECRET FCL to bid on this procurement. The JV shall provide a National Industrial Security System (NISS) facility verification notification as evidence of the FCL for the cleared JV partner.

NOTE: As contract performance is contingent upon issuance of a TOP SECRET FCL, it is imperative that the Offeror cooperate with all requirements imposed by DCSA. If the Offeror does not obtain the requisite FCL, the Government reserves the right to award to the next qualified Offeror. Should the JV be selected for award, the Department of State will sponsor the JV for the TS FCL, but until the JV clearance is awarded, only JV partners with FINAL TOP SECRET FCL will be allowed to perform work on task orders requiring TOP SECRET clearance. Other than U.S. Government sponsorship for the FCL, the U. S. Department of State assumes no responsibility for clearance processing.

Comment by Namejko, Robert B: Not required Offerors not meeting these GO/NO-GO criteria will not receive further consideration and their Stage I response will not be reviewed.

M.3 Stage I Evaluation (Technical)

Stage I focuses heavily on assessing the technical capabilities of the Offeror. Stage I factors, when combined, are significantly more important than Stage II factors. The page limits noted in Section L.4 for Factors 1-3 will be enforced to emphasize conciseness and maximum relevance in the Offeror’s Stage I deliverables.

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

Factor 1: Technical Approach

· The Offeror’s quotation will be evaluated by assessing the likelihood that the Offeror’s proposed technical approach will meet the Government’s requirements, including a sound explanation of how implementation of the proposed technical solution will deliver timely, flexible, responsive, compliant, and cost effective services to meet the training needs of DOS and approach to mitigate associated risks.

· This factor will be used to evaluate the degree to which the Offeror’s proposed technical approach meets all requirements and challenges of the solicitation and demonstrates a clear understanding of mission objectives.

· The Government will evaluate the technical approach for evidence that the comprehensive timeline and schedule, to include mobilization of personnel and resources serves as the framework for the contractor’s process for delivering quality services and clearly outlines “how” the contractor will achieve results to meet the program and mission requirements.

Factor 2: Past Performance

· Evaluation of past performance will allow the Government to determine whether the offeror consistently delivered quality services in a timely manner, while utilizing adequate cost controls. Past performance will be evaluated for relevant contracts performed by the offeror during the last three (3) years consistent with the size, scope and complexity of the services identified in the SOW. The Government may obtain additional information on relevant past performance from other sources such as Government past performance databases.

· Past performance on contracts that are more technically relevant to Project Groups described in the SOW and similar in size, scope and complexity will receive greater consideration than performance on contracts that are less relevant.

· In general, past performance will be evaluated on the extent of client satisfaction with the previous performance of the offeror; the offeror’s effectiveness in managing and directing resources; the offeror’s demonstration of reasonable and cooperative behavior in dealing with clients; the offeror’s quality of previously performed services the offeror’s ability to control costs and manage contract activities; and the offeror’s effectiveness in meeting schedules in providing services and products.

· If the Government cannot locate other sources of relevant past performance information for the offeror, the offeror will receive a neutral (neither favorable nor unfavorable) Past Performance rating.

· Evaluation of the offeror’s past performance reference(s) shall consider the recency, relevance, and quality of the past performance references.

· Recency – Past performance will be considered recent for purposes of this evaluation ONLY IF the period of performance for the cited reference is within 3 years of the date of release of this RFQ. Any Offeror Past Performance reference that does not meet the above criterion will not be considered any further, i.e., with respect to its Relevance or the Quality of the Offeror's performance.

· Relevance – The Government will evaluate the relevance of each recent Past Performance reference by considering the similarity in size, scope, and complexity as reported by the Offeror in their Past Performance Details.

· Quality – The Government will evaluate the quality of each past performance reference by considering the quality exhibited in performing the work primarily based on the pertinent past performance information available to the CO.

Factor 3: Management Approach

· The Government will also evaluate the extent to which the proposed Staffing Plan demonstrates the offeror’s ability to recruit and retain qualified staffs, handle personnel issues, assemble high quality staff to fill immediate requirements and provide staff with all the necessary support and oversight. The Government shall also evaluate the offeror’s demonstrated ability to hire and maintain key personnel with relevant degrees; and other relevant professional certifications.

· The Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror’s approach demonstrates flexibility in responding to changing mission needs, including surge capacity and reach-back capability for subject matter experts and operational support personnel on and off site.

· The Government will evaluate whether the offeror has 1) a level 3 or higher CMMI certification, 2) a Top Secret Level Facility Clearance Level, an 3) ISO 9001 certification, 4) any other relevant certifications the offeror may possess.

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

M.4 Stage II Evaluation (Work Product, Oral Presentation, and Pricing)

Stage II evaluates additional technical capabilities of the Offeror and includes pricing evaluation which is conducted separately from the technical portion. Altogether, the Stage II technical factors are worth significantly less than the Stage I technical factors.

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

Factor 4: Work Product and Oral Presentation

· The Government will provide Offeror with a data set and ask the Offeror to use the data set to demonstrate its data analytics capabilities, including dashboard-building and analysis. This Work Product will be submitted as part of the Oral Presentation PowerPoint Slides.

· The Government will review and evaluate the PowerPoint Slide Oral Presentation based on timeliness of delivery, clarity of points contained therein and adherence to the slide count of 25 slides total with no exclusions.

· The Government will evaluate if the Offeror's presentation exceeded or stayed within the required two 2-hour presentation window.

· The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror conveys their understanding of R/PPR and its customer's needs.

· The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror can enhance the Government's capabilities with respect to the Project Groups identified in the SOW.

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror can identify errors or missteps in the Governments approach and offer insight in how to better the Government's approach with respect to the Project Groups identified in the SOW.

Factor 5: Pricing Volume

The Government anticipates adequate price competition under this solicitation, with such competition ensuring that the fully burdened hourly labor rates will be fair and reasonable. Price proposals shall be submitted in a separate file using the provided Excel Pricing Workbook (Attachment B). The Government will evaluate submitted Pricing Tables for the Base Period and all Option Periods using a specified level of effort (LOE) and staffing mix provided as a separate tab in the Excel Pricing Workbook. This sample LOE will be used for evaluation purposes only and does not represent a specific requirement. Evaluation of option-year pricing will not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

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

a. Pricing Completeness

b. Total Proposed Pricing as determined by the sample LOE

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

In making an award determination, the Government’s evaluation of the combined Technical Factors will be weighted substantially more than price. As Technical Factors 1-4 become more equal, the Pricing Volume will receive greater consideration in the best value/tradeoff analysis. The Contracting Officer will determine what tradeoffs promise the greatest value to the Government, when considering both price and non-price factors, and shall not be required to select the lowest price Offeror. Technical Factors, when taken together, are significantly more important than Price in the final determination.

M.5 Basis for Award

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

The Government will utilize the Tradeoff Source Selection Process. This process allows for a tradeoff between non-price factors and cost/price and allows the Government to accept other than the lowest priced proposals or other than the highest technically rated proposals to achieve a best value award decision. All evaluation factors other than Factor 5 – Attachment B, when combined, are significantly more important than price. However, when the non-cost/price factors are rated more equally between Offerors, cost/price becomes more of a deciding factor in making the best value determination. Offerors are strongly encouraged to submit their most advantageous technical and price proposals with their initial submission.

NOTE: As contract performance is contingent upon issuance of a TOP SECRET FCL, it is imperative that the Offeror cooperate with all requirements imposed by DCSA. If the Offeror does not obtain the requisite FCL, the Government reserves the right to award to the next qualified Offeror. Should the JV be selected for award, the Department of State will sponsor the JV for the TS FCL, but until the JV clearance is awarded, only JV partners with FINAL TOP SECRET FCL will be allowed to perform work on task orders requiring TOP SECRET clearance. Other than U.S. Government sponsorship for the FCL, the U. S. Department of State assumes no responsibility for clearance processing.

M.6 Discussions

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

M.7. Rating Methodology Evaluation of all non-price factors in Stage I and II (pricing will be evaluated separately) will use the following confidence ratings. The Government will consider the benefits and risks associated with the Offeror’s quotation to arrive at a confidence assessment of the Offeror’s likelihood of successfully performing the requirements of the solicitation.

Table M1: Non-Price Factor Confidence Ratings

M.8. Facility Clearance Sponsorship

In order to be eligible to perform under this contract, the selected offeror must possess or be able to obtain a Department of Defense (DoD) Secret Facility Clearance (FCL) issued in accordance with the National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual (NISPOM), 32 CFR part 117.