COMET_Section M.docx

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1 GENERAL

1.1 Basis for Contract Award

This acquisition will utilize the Tradeoff source selection procedures in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15, Contracting by Negotiation, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS), and DoD Source Selection Procedures 31 Mar 2016, and Air Force Mandatory Procedures 5315.3. These regulations are available electronically at Acquisition.gov. The Government will select the best overall offer(s), based upon an integrated assessment of Technical Rating, Technical Risk, Past Performance, and Price. Technical Rating, Technical Risk Rating, and Past Performance, when combined, are significantly more important than Price.

Contract(s) may be awarded to the Offeror(s) who are deemed responsible in accordance with FAR Part 9, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation), and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors, to represent the best value to the Government. The Government seeks to award to the Offeror(s) who gives the Air Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet the requirements. This may result in an award to a higher-rated, higher-priced Offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the superior technical rating, lower risk, and/or past performance of the higher-priced offer outweighs the cost/price difference. The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation (described below). While the Government source selection 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.

1.2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award up to four (4) contracts for the NASIC Communications and Enterprise Information Technology Support Services (COMET) Program. However, the Government reserves the right to award more or fewer contracts if the Source Selection Authority determines it is in the Government’s best interest considering the Government’s expected volume of work over the period of the contract, available funding, the need to sustain adequate competition, and the availability of award-eligible proposals at a reasonable price following completion of evaluations of the proposals received. The Government also reserves the right to make no award at all.

1.2.1 Award of Initial Task Orders

Among the Offerors evaluated as providing the best value to the Government (and thus being awarded basic IDIQ contracts), Task Order 1 will be awarded to the company with the highest rating in Subfactor Two. Task Order 2 will be awarded to the company with the highest rating in Subfactor Three. Task Order 3 will be awarded to the company with the highest rating in Subfactor Four. Task Order 4 will be awarded to the company with the highest rating in Subfactor Five. Task Order 5 will be awarded to the company with the highest rating in Subfactor Six. In the event that multiple Offerors are rated equally in the Subfactor, the first TO will be awarded to the Offeror with the overall best value in the tradeoff decision followed by award of TO’s two through five. In the event the Government determines to award to fewer than four Offerors, award of any Task Orders remaining will revert to the Offeror with the overall best value in the tradeoff decision. In the event the Government determines to award to more than four Offerors, any additional awardees will be awarded a task order beyond the originally evaluated five and meeting the minimum order amount required.

1.2.2 Award of Subsequent Task Orders

Subsequent Task Orders will be competed in accordance with the Fair Opportunities regulations specified in FAR Part 16.

1.3 Grossly Deficient

The Government may reject any proposal from this competition prior to evaluating the proposal against the Evaluation Factors if an initial assessment of the proposal shows the proposal to be grossly deficient. Grossly deficient proposals are proposals that fail to address essential requirements of the RFP or fail to furnish information demonstrating compliance with mandatory requirements set forth in the RFP and does not represent a reasonable initial effort by the Offeror to address the requirements of the RFP.

1.4 Correction Potential of Proposals

The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential" of any deficiency. The judgment of such "correction potential" is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal does not meet the Government's requirements and is not considered correctable, the Offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range.

1.5 Discussions

The Government intends to award a contract(s) without discussions. Therefore, each initial offer should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions with Offerors, IAW FAR 15.306, if deemed in its best interest.

If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, Offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. If the Offeror is evaluated as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the Final Proposal Revision are subject to evaluation and may increase the risk that the Offeror’s proposal will be determined unacceptable and, thus, ineligible for award.

1.6 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 or subfactors. 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. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions unacceptable and the proposal, therefore, ineligible for award.

2 EVALUATION FACTORS

2.1 Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

In order to be considered for award, a proposal must successfully pass the Entry Gate. Once the proposal passes the Entry Gate, the gate will no longer be part of the award decision. In addition, the following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal:

Entry Gate: Compliance Factor One: Technical Subfactor One: Program Management Subfactor Two: End User Workspace Tasks Subfactor Three: Datacenter, Network, and Platform Hosting Tasks Subfactor Four: IT Service Design and Cybersecurity Tasks Subfactor Five: Cloud Services Tasks Subfactor Six: Facility Security System Tasks Factor Two: Past Performance Factor Three: Price

2.2 Technical Factor

The Government’s technical evaluation team will evaluate the technical proposals, assigning a technical rating and a technical risk rating described below for each subfactor. Any subfactor evaluated as “Unacceptable” will render the entire proposal unacceptable and, therefore, unawardable. 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 discussion. The Offeror’s response to Subfactor One will be rated using the scales in Tables 1 and 3. The Offeror’s response to Subfactors Two through Six will be rated using the scales in Tables 2 and 3.

TABLE 1 – ADJECTIVAL RATING (Applicable to Subfactors One)

TABLE 2 - TECHNICAL RATINGS (Applicable to Subfactors Two through Six)

Technical Risk Rating: Technical risk, which is manifested by the identification of weaknesses and/or significant weaknesses and/or a material failure, assesses the degree to which an Offeror’s proposed approach for the requirements of the solicitation may cause disruption of schedule, degradation of performance, the need for increased government oversight, and/or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. The evaluation shall address the Source Selection Evaluation Board’s identification of any weaknesses and/or significant weaknesses, as well as the Offeror’s identified risks and proposed mitigation (if applicable) and document why that is or is not manageable. Each technical subfactor will receive one of the Technical Risk ratings described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, excerpted below in Table 3.

TABLE 3 – TECHNICAL RISK RATINGS (Applicable to all subfactors)

2.2.1 Entry Gate: Compliance

Description: This entry gate evaluates whether the Offeror possesses a Top Secret facility clearance indicated by the DCSA National Industrial Security database (NISS).

Measure of Merit - Top Secret Facility Clearance: This requirement is met when the Offeror’s proposal provides written documentation that the company has obtained a Top Secret facility clearance. If an Offeror fails to provide evidence that they possess a Top Secret Facility Clearance at the time of proposal submission, the Offeror will be considered ineligible for contract award and eliminated without further evaluation of its proposal.

2.2.2 Factor One: Technical

The proposals shall be evaluated against the following technical subfactors:

2.2.2.1 Subfactor One: Program Management

Description: This subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s management approach to execute the COMET Contract, to include IDIQ management, personnel management, security, and transition of requirements from the incumbent to the Offeror. This subfactor is met when the Offeror’s proposal:

a. Measure of Merit 1 - IDIQ Management (Task Order PWS Management): Describes a sound management approach to accomplish the COMET requirements.

b. Measure of Merit 2 - Management Plan (Personnel): Demonstrates a sound understanding of the scope of work required to ensure the Offeror’s team possesses or can readily obtain the skilled personnel required to accomplish the COMET tasks set forth within each Task Order PWS with the required certifications or specialized training.

c. Measure of Merit 3 - Security: Describes a sound approach to managing company and personnel security processes.

d. Measure of Merit 4 - Transition Plan: Describes a sound approach to assume responsibility from the Incumbent for the requirements identified in section 3 of each Task Order.

2.2.2.2 Subfactor Two: End User Workspace Tasks

Description: This subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s ability to provide customer service support for end user workspace tasks with regards to service desk and software administration management.

Strengths: This Measure of Merit is eligible for strengths, which allow the Offeror to receive a subfactor technical rating higher than Green/Acceptable (IAW Table 2). A strength is 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. Any proposed strengths will become part of the Offeror’s contractual requirement upon award.

NOTE: See paragraph 1.2.1, Award of Initial Task Orders, for information about the award of a Task Order associated with this Subfactor.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the Offeror’s proposal describes a sound approach to providing customer service for each of the PWS tasks below and provides an example of experience for one of the tasks.

i. Service Desk (Communications Focal Point)/Touch Maintenance/Account Management

ii. Software Administration/Installation/License Management Available Strengths: The Offeror’s proposal can be awarded strengths by providing a sound approach to implementing customer service functions that could benefit from automation as proposed by the Offeror.

2.2.2.3 Subfactor Three: Datacenter, Network, and Platform Hosting Tasks Description: This subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s ability to provide support for datacenter, network, and platform hosting tasks as well as perform database management and enterprise application server software management.

Strengths: Measures of Merit 1 and 2 are eligible for strengths, which allow the Offeror to receive a subfactor technical rating higher than Green/Acceptable (IAW Table 2). A strength is 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. Any proposed strengths will become part of the Offeror’s contractual requirement upon award.

NOTE: See paragraph 1.2.1, Award of Initial Task Orders, for information about the award of a Task Order associated with this Subfactor.

Measure of Merit 1: This requirement is met when the Offeror’s proposal describes a sound approach to maintaining service delivery and system lifecycle management for each of the two tasks below and provides an example of experience for one of the tasks.

i. Infrastructure Engineering and Installation

ii. Datacenter Operations Available Strengths: The Offeror’s proposal can be awarded strengths by proposing a sound approach for enhancing lifecycle management and automating the provisioning and monitoring of datacenter resources.

Measure of Merit 2: This requirement is met when the Offeror’s proposal describes a sound approach to performing database and application management for the task below and provides one example of experience.

i. Database and Application Management

Available Strengths: The Offeror’s proposal can be awarded strengths by proposing a sound approach of a way to improve existing application, database, and underlying infrastructure to enhance reliability, performance, and response times.

2.2.2.4 Subfactor Four: IT Service Design and Cybersecurity Tasks Description: This subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s ability to deliver cybersecurity, engineering, IT governance, and information management services.

Strengths: This Measure of Merit is eligible for strengths, which allow the Offeror to receive a subfactor technical rating higher than Green/Acceptable (IAW Table 2). A strength is 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. Any proposed strengths will become part of the Offeror’s contractual requirement upon award.

NOTE: See paragraph 1.2.1, Award of Initial Task Orders, for information about the award of a Task Order associated with this Subfactor.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the Offeror’s proposal describes a sound approach to maintaining system approvals to operate throughout all applicable aspects of IT Service Management for each of the four tasks below and provides an example of experience for one of the tasks.

i. Software Vulnerability Testing

ii. Network Auditing

iii. Cybersecurity Defense System Support

iv. Information Technology Service Management Available Strengths: The Offeror’s proposal can be awarded strengths by proposing a sound approach for automating cybersecurity tools including system scanning and system discovery to enforce cybersecurity policies that enable remediation of CAT I vulnerabilities and Comply to Connect.

2.2.2.5 Subfactor Five: Cloud Services Tasks

Description: This subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s ability to deliver Engineering and Cloud Services support to include Systems Engineering, Infrastructure as a Service, Platform as a Service, and Cloud Support for NASIC’s enterprise.

Strengths: This Measure of Merit is eligible for strengths, which allow the Offeror to receive a subfactor technical rating higher than Green/Acceptable (IAW Table 2). A strength is 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. Any proposed strengths will become part of the Offeror’s contractual requirement upon award.

NOTE: See paragraph 1.2.1, Award of Initial Task Orders, for information about the award of a Task Order associated with this Subfactor.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the Offeror’s proposal describes a sound approach to implementing and maintaining cloud-based systems for each of the two tasks below and provides an example of experience for one of the tasks.

i. Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS) and Cloud Operations

ii. Platform as a Service (PaaS) Operations Available Strengths: The Offeror’s proposal can be awarded strengths by proposing a sound approach to improve adoption of Cloud Services by existing software and services to include automating manual processes and identifying opportunities for innovation.

2.2.2.6 Subfactor Six: Facility Security System Tasks

Description: This subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s ability to maintain the physical access control system (ACS), intrusion detection system (IDS), and Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) system for Collateral and Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) facilities.

Strengths: This Measure of Merit is eligible for strengths, which allow the Offeror to receive a subfactor technical rating higher than Green/Acceptable (IAW Table 2). A strength is 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. Any proposed strengths will become part of the Offeror’s contractual requirement upon award.

NOTE: See paragraph 1.2.1, Award of Initial Task Orders, for information about the award of a Task Order associated with this Subfactor.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the Offeror’s proposal describes a sound approach to maintaining the physical access control, intrusion detection, and Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) systems for Collateral and Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) facilities for the task below and provides one example of experience.

i. Physical Access Control/Intrusion Detection

Available Strengths: The Offeror’s proposal can be awarded strengths by proposing a sound approach to prepare the existing ACS, IDS, and CCTV systems to enable migration to the IC Badge System with minimal downtime and minimal service interruption.

2.2.3 Factor Two: Past Performance

The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the Offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements.

2.2.3.1 Ratings

The Past Performance factor will receive one of the performance confidence assessments described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 4 – Performance Confidence Assessments, excerpted below.

TABLE 4 – PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS RATING SCALE

Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Government has a low expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Government has no expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

2.2.3.2 Evaluation Process

The past performance evaluation considers each Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements. Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the Offeror’s (as a whole, including Prime and any subcontractors) recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the Technical subfactors. The Government may consider past performance in the aggregate in addition to on an individual contract basis. In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the Offeror’s Past Performance proposal volume and information obtained from other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, Contractor Performance Assessment Report System (CPARS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers and Fee Determining Officials; and the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources.

2.2.3.3 Recency Assessment

An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing with at least 6 months of performance or must have been performed during the past three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. If the effort began more than 3 years before the date of issuance of this solicitation, only the effort which occurred during the past 3 years will be considered recent. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

2.2.3.4 Relevancy Assessment

The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the services performed under those contracts relate to the Technical subfactors. For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed for the Technical subfactors (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). Consideration will be given to information technology support services. A relevancy determination of the Offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations, including joint venture partner(s) and significant and critical subcontractor(s). In determining the relevancy of effort performed under individual past performance contracts, the Government will only consider the specific effort or portion consistent with that proposed by the prime, subcontractor or teaming partner. The past performance information questionnaires and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance. The Government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing recent, relevant contracts:

TABLE 5 – PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATING SCALE

2.2.3.5 Performance Quality Assessment

The Government will consider the performance quality (how well the contractor performed on the contracts) of recent and relevant efforts. For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed for the Technical subfactors; however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered. The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of all past performance information available.

The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. 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 without a formal rating system. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated.

The Government will use the following quality levels when assessing recent, relevant efforts:

TABLE 6 – QUALITY ASSESSMENT RATING SCALE

2.2.4 Assigning Ratings

As a result of the relevancy and performance quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, Offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the Technical subfactors, the resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance. Offerors 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 on past performance and, as a result, will receive a "Neutral Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor.

More recent and relevant performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less recent or relevant effort. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a "Neutral Confidence" rating.

2.3 Price

2.3.1 Price Factor

Price proposals will be evaluated for (1) completeness, (2) reasonableness, (3) unbalanced pricing, and (4) Total Evaluated Price. Offerors whose price is determined to be incomplete or unreasonable will not be considered for award. Additionally, an offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines unbalanced pricing poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

2.3.2 Completeness

The Government will review the pricing submissions for completeness and compliance with Section L of the solicitation.

2.3.3 Reasonableness

The Offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated, using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404, in order to determine if it is reasonable. For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. Normally, price reasonableness is established through price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404. For additional information see FAR 31.201-3.

2.3.4 Unbalanced Pricing

The Government will conduct an analysis for unbalanced pricing IAW FAR 15.404-1(g). Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, a proposed line item is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and could result in payment of unreasonably high prices. Offerors are cautioned that a proposal may be rejected if unbalanced pricing exists and the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. The burden of proof for demonstrating balanced pricing rests with the Offeror.

2.3.5 Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

The TEP will be calculated using:

a. The sum of the first five task orders that will be awarded concurrently with the IDIQ contract for a period of performance of year one (1).

b. Annual pricing for years two (2) through five (5) for the five task orders in then-year dollars with the assumption that that the number of contractors and functional areas will remain the same for each year for the five task orders.

All labor rates provided for each of the first five years are binding and rates for the additional five years can be negotiated at the time that option is exercised. Labor rates will be added to Section J of the contract.

3 Pre-Award Survey The Government may conduct a pre-award survey (PAS) as part of this source selection. Results of the PAS (if conducted) will be evaluated to determine each Offeror’s capability to meet the requirements of the solicitation.

Section M Page 9 of 12