Attch 2 - Section M Evaluation Factors for Award 20220825.pdf

Joint Navigation Warfare Center (JNWC) IV

RFP: FA2518-22-R-0027

Section J Attachment 2: Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award

In accordance with (IAW) FAR 52.232-19 – Availability of Funds (Apr 1984)

Funds are not presently available for this contract. The Government’s obligation under this contract is contingent upon the availability of appropriated funds from which payment for contract purposes can be made. No legal liability on the part of the Government for any payment may arise until funds are made available to the Contracting Officer for this contract and until the Contractor receives notice of such availability, to be confirmed in writing by the Contracting Officer.

(End of Clause)

M-1. FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION (48CFR, CHAPTER 1) CLAUSES

Clauses are located in Section I of the SF 33.

M-2. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION (48 CFR, CHAPTER 2)

PROVISIONS

None at this time.

M-3. EVALUATION CRITERIA

A. AWARD WITHOUT DISCUSSIONS.

As set forth in FAR 52.215-1(f)(4) of Section L, the Government intends to award without discussions. The Government may make a final determination as to whether the offeror’s proposal is acceptable or unacceptable solely on the basis of the initial proposal as submitted. Accordingly, offerors are advised to submit initial proposals that are fully and clearly acceptable without additional information or explanation and contain the offeror’s best terms from a technical and price stand point. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer (CO) later determines them to be necessary.

B. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD.

1. North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code. This acquisition will be conducted using a Two-Phased approach. Phase I will use a full-and-open competition from which only those offerors who pass Phase I will then be permitted to submit a Phase II proposal. The NAICS code is 54175 Research & Development (R&D) in the Physical, Engineering & Life Sciences, with a small business size standard of 1000 employees.

2. Competitive Best Value. This is a competitive best value source selection using DoD Source Selection Procedures, trading price for technical superiority. To be eligible for award, the offeror must be deemed responsible in accordance with FAR 9.104; meet all requirements of the solicitation; conform to all required terms and conditions; and include all required certifications. The Government will evaluate competing offerors' technical proposals as significantly more important than price considerations. The Government seeks to award to the responsive, responsible offeror whose proposal is considered to provide the best value to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of price and technical approach. The Government seeks to award to the offeror who gives the Air Force the best value in meeting or exceeding contract requirements. This may result in an award being made to another-than-lowest-price or other-than-highest-rated offeror where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the SSA reasonably determines that the technical superiority of the higher priced offeror either does or does not outweigh the price difference. In such cases the SSA shall make an integrated assessment best value award decision. While the Government source selection evaluation team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process by its nature is subjective. Therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

3. Responsibility Determination. To be eligible for award, the offeror must be deemed responsible in accordance with FAR 9.104. Past performance will not be evaluated pursuant to FAR 15.304, but will be considered as a

RFP# FA2518-22-R-0027

Section J – Attachment 2 component of contractor responsibility to ensure a history of satisfactory performance. The past performance portion of the responsibility determination will examine the selected contractor’s performance record to ensure a history of at least satisfactory performance. A lack of demonstrated history of satisfactory past performance will be a basis for a determination of non-responsibility.

4. Prices. Offerors must include unit prices for each CLIN listed in Section B for the basic period and all option periods. Failure to do so may be cause for rejection of the entire offer.

5. Award. Only one award will be made as a result of this solicitation.

C. EVALUATION FACTORS. The evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

1. Two-Phased Approach. The Government will request proposals in two phases. Offerors shall submit only Phase I first, in accordance with the instructions below. Only offerors that pass Phase I will be permitted to submit Phase II proposals. Offerors not passing Phase I will be eliminated from consideration from award and will not be permitted to submit Phase II proposals. Offerors must have submitted a Phase I proposal and passed in order to submit a Phase II proposal. Phase II proposals will not be considered from offerors who have not submitted a Phase I proposal.

2. Description. Phase I proposals will be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis. Offerors must be determined acceptable in Phase I in order to be eligible to submit a proposal for Phase II. Phase II proposals will be evaluated on five (5) factors: Factor 1 – Scenarios/Questions, Factor 2 – Staffing Plan, Factor 3 – Phase-in Plan, Factor 4 – Small Business Participation Commitment, and Factor 5 – Price and Contract Documents. Factor 1 consists of three subfactors; subfactor 1 and 2 are tradeable while subfactor 3 is “acceptable/unacceptable.” Factor 2 consists of two subfactors, both of which are tradeable. Factors 3 and 4 are “acceptable/unacceptable.” Factor 5 will be evaluated for reasonableness, balance, and to ensure all required contract documents have been submitted.

3. Relative importance. The relative importance of each factor and subfactor is as follows: Factor 1 – Questions/Scenarios has the following three subfactors, 1)) J3 Warfighter Support Scenario, 2) J9 Question One 3) J9 Question Two (acceptable/unacceptable). Offerors must receive an “acceptable” on subfactor 3 to be eligible for award, and subfactors 1 and 2 are of equal importance. Factor 2 – Staffing, has the following two subfactors: 1) IDIQ Labor Categories; 2) Task Order One Staffing Plan. Subfactors 1 and 2 are of equal importance. Factor 3 – Phase-in Plan, and Factor 4 – Small Business Participation Commitment are “acceptable/unacceptable” and both must receive a rating of “acceptable” in order to be eligible for award. Factor 1, including all three subfactors, is of equal importance as Factor 2, including both subfactors. Factors 1 and 2, including all tradeable subfactors, when combined, are significantly more important than Factor 5 price.

4. Phase I – Technical Qualification Gate. Offerors must receive a rating of “acceptable” on all eight elements in order to pass the Phase I Technical Qualification Gate. Each element will be rated against the following table:

a. Table 1 - Phase I Technical Qualification Rating.

Rating Definition

Acceptable: Offeror demonstrates technical understanding of element Unacceptable: Offeror does not demonstrate technical understanding of element

5. Phase II – Technical and Price Evaluation. Only proposals that have passed Phase I will be evaluated as part of Phase II. The below tables and color rating will be used and are found in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, page. 25, 3.1.2.1.1., https://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/policy/policyvault/USA004370-14-DPAP.pdf

(i) Table 2 - Definitions for Factor 1, subfactor 1 (J3 Scenario), subfactor 2 (J9 Question One), and Factor 2, subfactor 1 (IDIQ Labor Categories) and subfactor 2 (Task Order One Staffing Plan) 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.

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.

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

Significant Weakness

A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

(ii) Table 3 - Ratings for Factor 1, subfactor 3 (J3 Scenario), and Factor 2, subfactor 1

(IDIQ Labor Categories) and subfactor 2 (Task Order One Staffing Plan) Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements, and contains multiple strengths, 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, 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/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

a. FACTOR 1 – SCENARIO/QUESTIONS

1) J3 Warfighter Support Scenario (subfactor 1). Offerors will be scored on the J3 Operations Scenario using Attachment 4 – J3 Warfighter Support Grading Key, Tables 1 and 2. Note column E of Attachment 4. Responses receiving a score of “No” (0) will be counted as a Deficiency and will not be given a score in column F. Also note the definitions of “High,” “Medium,” and “Low” in column F of Attachment 4. Responses receiving a score of “High” (5) will be counted as a Strength, responses receiving a score of “Medium” (3) will be counted as meeting the requirement, and responses receiving a score of “Low” (1) will be counted as either a Weakness or Significant Weakness depending on the level of risk determined. The determination of the level of risk will be based solely on the Government’s judgment.

2) J9 Engineering Support Question One (subfactor 2). Offerors must receive a minimum score of 60 to be eligible for award. The minimal acceptable answer is a score of 60, additional credit will be given for exceeding 60 in accordance with the description below (i-vii). Each 10-point increment above 60 will be counted as a “Strength.” Therefore, an offeror who receives a score of 70 will be credited with one Strength and an offeror who receives a score of 80 will be credited with two strengths, etc. Any combination of correct and incorrect answers is acceptable as long as the total score is 60 or above. Answers will be scored as follows:

(i) 10 points for correct identification of the specific type of signals being measured

(ii) 10 points for correct identification of the noise floor level

(iii) 10 points for correct calculation of the noise floor and its measurement bandwidth (more than one correct answer is possible)

(iv) 10 points for correct explanation of what happens with the addition of each signal to the total

(v) 20 points for correct explanation of the measurement

(vi) 20 points for correct explanation of methodology to measure the GPS signal of each SV under the noise floor

(vii) 20 points for correct measurement process of the gain and attenuation through the test systems/system

3) J9 Engineering Question Two (subfactor 3, acceptable/unacceptable). Offerors pass Question Two when they provide a correct answer. Hint: Question Two is a math problem and there is only one correct answer.

b. FACTOR 2 - STAFFING

1) IDIQ Staffing Plan (subfactor 1). This subfactor evaluates the proposed approach to providing appropriate and qualified labor categories throughout the life of the contract. The proposal will receive a combined technical/risk rating reflecting the extent to which it does or does not meet or exceed the following objectives:

· Clearly provides labor categories, including corresponding minimum qualifications and wages to meet or exceed all potential tasks called for under this contract;

· Clearly provides an accurate description of key responsibilities to be performed for all labor categories.

· The proposal clearly demonstrates an effective approach to attracting, recruiting, retaining, and/or replacing personnel with requisite security clearances within 60 days of vacancy, so as to comply with the Section H Clause – Staffing Requirements.

2) Task Order One Staffing Plan (subfactor 2). This subfactor evaluates the proposed approach to providing appropriate and qualified labor categories throughout the life of Task Order One. The proposal will receive a combined technical/risk rating reflecting the extent to which it does or does not meet or exceed the following objectives:

· The staffing plan clearly demonstrates appropriate labor category descriptions, education, professional qualifications, licenses, training, certifications and/or security clearances necessary to meet or exceed all Task Order One PWS requirements.

c. FACTOR 3 – PHASE-IN PLAN (acceptable/unacceptable). This factor evaluates the proposed approach to Phase-In. The Phase-In Plan will be assigned a rating of “acceptable” or “unacceptable” in accordance with Table 4. The proposal will be rated “acceptable” when the Phase-In Plan contains the processes and procedures required for effective contract transition, including:

1) The process for effectively on-boarding cleared personnel

2) The process for effectively hiring incumbent and non-incumbent personnel and issuance of CACs

3) The process for ensuring all contract requirements, including ongoing Task Orders, continue seamlessly during the transition from the out-going contractor to the incoming contractor.

Table 4 – Ratings for Factor 3: From DoD Source Selection Procedures

Rating Description Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of JNWC

Phase-In Plan objectives.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet all JNWC Phase-In Plan objectives

d. FACTOR 4 – SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION COMMITMENT (Acceptable/Unacceptable).

This factor will be assigned a rating of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” in accordance with the modified ratings from DoD Source Selection Procedures Table 5. The factor will be rated “Acceptable” when:

1) The minimum quantitative requirement (MQR) of 25% percent of total contract cost is met and

2) Each small business concern utilized as a teaming partner or subcontractor is specifically identified and formally committed to by name, via a signed teaming agreement with that specific small business concern. Additionally, the teaming agreement shall address the type of small business (i.e. SB, SDVOSB, WOSB), type of service(s) and percentage of contracted support the small business will provide. The Government will evaluate the teaming agreement based on the extent of commitment to use the teaming partner, as well as the level of enforceability.

Table 5- Ratings for Factor 4: From DoD Source Selection Procedures

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

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

e. FACTOR 5 – PRICE AND CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. An offeror’s total evaluated price (TEP) will be determined as follows: by multiplying the quantities identified in Attachment 7 – FPIF CLIN Structure Spreadsheet by the proposed unit price for each Contract Line Item Number (CLIN). Total Evaluated Price will be determined by the sum of all CLINs (except Phase-in) and the offeror’s Target Profit.

The offeror’s proposal shall represent the offeror’s best efforts to respond to the solicitation. All proposals will be evaluated for price reasonableness. Phase-in CLINs will not count towards the TEP, but will be evaluated separately for price reasonableness. All prices must be determined reasonable in order to be eligible for award. Price is not assigned a rating; however, an assessment of reasonableness and balance will be performed.

1) Price Reasonableness. The techniques and procedures described under FAR 15.404-1(b) will be used to assess proposal reasonableness.

2) Balanced Pricing. The techniques and procedures described under FAR 15.404-1(g) will be the primary means of assessing unbalanced pricing.

3) Realistic Professional Compensation. The professional compensation proposed will be considered in terms of its impact upon recruiting and retention, its realism, and its consistency with a total plan for compensation. Compensation Plans determined to be unrealistic may be excluded for consideration for award.