CSS3 J-8 Section M Evaluation Criteria draft RFP.docx

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

of

CYBER SUPPORT SERVICES 3 (CSS3)

May 2024

Prepared By:

AFLCMC/HNIB

3 Eglin Street, Bldg 1612 Hanscom AFB, MA 01731

Contents

Basis for Contract Award This is a best value full trade off source selection conducted in accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 15.3, Source Selection, and FAR 15.101-1, Tradeoff Process, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) subpart 215.3, the DoD Source Selection Procedures (August 20, 2022), the Department of the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DAFFARS) subpart 5315.3, and the Air Force Mandatory Procedures 5315.3. These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FARSite (http://farsite.hill.af.mil).

The Government intends to make a single award by selecting the best value offeror, who is deemed responsible IAW FAR 9.1, Responsible Prospective Contractors, 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 Source Selection Authority (SSA) will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation (described below).

A tradeoff will be made between the Technical Factor, Cost/Price Factor, and Past Performance Factor where the Technical Factor is significantly more important than the Cost/Price Factor. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the SSA reasonably determines that the technical approach/technical risk of the higher price offer outweighs the cost/price difference.

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.

0. Number of Contracts to be Awarded The Government intends to award one (1) contract for CSS3, which includes a Base period, and four (4) Option periods, but reserves the right to award more or no contracts depending on the quality of the proposal(s) submitted and the best interests of the Government.

0. Discussions/Competitive Range The Government intends to conduct discussions as part of this evaluation. Competitive range determinations may occur more than once. Offerors excluded from the competitive range may request a debriefing IAW FAR 15.505. 33

The Government, at its discretion and for the purposes of efficient competition, may decide to enter discussions upon receipt of initial proposal.

Evaluation Factors

0. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors A contract may be awarded to the Offeror proposing a solution deemed most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below. The following evaluation Factors and Subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal:

Factor 1: Technical Subfactor 1.1: Transition Plan Subfactor 1.2: Personnel Subfactor 1.3: Procurement Approach Subfactor 1.4: Technical Team Approach and Execution Factor 2: Cost/Price Factor 3: Past Performance

Relative Importance Relative importance of each Factor and Subfactor are as follows: Factor 2: Cost/Price and Factor 3: Past Performance are of equal importance and when combined are significantly less important than Factor 1: Technical. Within the Technical Factor, the Subfactors in descending order of importance are; 1.4, 1.3, 1.2, 1.1, with Subfactor 1.4 being significantly more important than 1.1.

Factor 1: Technical The Technical evaluation will result in a single combined Technical/Risk rating at the Subfactor level described below. In addition to the Subfactor where an explicit strength opportunity is described, the Government intends to assign strengths on an aspect or aspects of the technical proposal that will be advantageous to the Government.

Technical/Risk Rating Evaluation The combined Technical/Risk rating depicts how well the Offeror’s proposal meets the Government’s Technical requirements within each Subfactor and the probability of unsuccessful performance. Each Technical subfactor will receive one of the ratings described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, dated August 20, 2022, Table 3 – Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method. The combined Technical/Risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, deficiencies as defined in Table 2B of the DoD Source Selection Procedures. Subfactor ratings will not be rolled up into a single rating for Factor 1: Technical.

Technical Subfactor 1.1- Transition Plan The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach and solutions proposed to meet CSS3 program requirements applicable to the following elements:

a. Initial Hiring

· The completeness of the hiring process described

· The feasibility of the durations described in the hiring process

· The speed with which positions can be filled with suitable candidates

b. Equipment Handling

· The likelihood of equipment being misplaced, untracked or otherwise mishandled given the proposed approach

c. Risk Mitigation

· The completeness of the risk identification accomplished

· The appropriateness of the risk ratings

· The feasibility and likely effectiveness of the risk mitigation approaches

d. Schedule

· The completeness of the schedule proposed

· The feasibility of the durations proposed in the schedule

· Durations in the schedule align to PWS requirements of section 3.25

Technical Subfactor 1.2 – Personnel The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach and solutions proposed to meet CSS3 program requirements applicable to the following elements:

a. Position Refills

· The completeness of the hiring process described

· The feasibility of the durations described in the hiring process

· The speed with which open positions can be refilled with suitable candidates

b. Vacancy Mitigations

· The feasibility and likely effectiveness of the mitigation steps described should Skills, Experience, and Certifications (SEC) or positions become vacant

c. Retention

· The likelihood of success of the retention methods to be used in mitigating employee turnover risk

Technical Subfactor 1.3 – Procurement Approach The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach and solutions proposed to meet CSS3 program requirements applicable to the following elements:

a. Product Acquisition

· The completeness of the acquisition process described

· The feasibility of the durations described in the acquisition process

· The accuracy the Offeror’s “in vs. out of control” color coding

· The speed with which acquisition steps within the Offeror’s control can be accomplished

b. Supply Chain Risk Management

· The level to which the current and proposed policies and approach provided mitigate supply chain risks. Offerors will not be penalized if current policies and procedures don’t include experience with Government procurements

· The likely effectiveness of the counterfeit prevention processes in ensuring no counterfeit parts are procured

· Strength(s) may be assigned if the proposed counterfeit prevention process reflects a realistic and achievable approach to maximizing speed of procurement while ensuring no counterfeit parts are procured

Technical Subfactor 1.4 – Technical Team Approach and Execution The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach and solutions proposed to meet CSS3 program requirements applicable to the following elements:

a. Holistic Management Approach

· The degree to which the approach ensures team cohesiveness, effective communication and promotes information exchanges between team members

· The ability of the Offeror to foster seamless integration and collaboration among team members

· Strength(s) may be assigned if the proposed management plan reflects a realistic and achievable approach to maximizing utility of individual team members in accomplishing the range of technical requirements over a “stove-piped” approach

b. Ticket Resolution

· The timeliness and completeness of the ticket resolution process

· The appropriateness of the ticket escalation circumstances and approaches

· The appropriateness of the engagement circumstances of the various Tier III resources

c. Integrated Test Facility (ITF) Management

· The degree to which the approach reduces network backbone or product downtime

· The degree to which the approach ensures ITF users have access whenever required

· The degree to which the approach ensures the library within the ITF “sandbox” is kept up to date

d. Field Engineering Representative (FER) Management

· The degree to which the approach ensures team cohesiveness, effective communication and promotes information exchanges between FERs, local units and organization, and HNI

e. Subject Matter Expert (SME) Execution

· The degree to which the approach ensures expert level service is provided in the execution of each SME requirement

Factor 2: Cost/Price

*NOT INCLUDED IN DRAFT RFP*

Price Reasonableness

Unbalanced Pricing

Cost Realism

*NOT INCLUDED IN DRAFT RFP*

Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

*NOT INCLUDED IN DRAFT RFP*

Factor 3: Past Performance

The Past Performance evaluation factor assesses the degree of confidence the Government has in an Offeror’s ability to supply products and services that meet users’ needs, based on a demonstrated record of performance. 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. In accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2), the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor’s performance shall be considered. These are combined to establish one performance confidence assessment rating for each offeror.

Recency Past Performance information will be evaluated for Recency, having occurred no more than three years from RFP XXX solicitation date.

Relevancy Past Performance will be evaluated for Relevancy. The Government will base Relevance on the Offeror’s history of contract (or subcontract) performance that would provide the most context and give the greatest ability to measure whether the Offeror will successfully satisfy the current requirement. The Government will assess the Offeror’s Past Performance based on the similarity of the services provided, their complexity, the dollar value, contract type, and the extent of the Offeror’s participation if in a subcontracting/teaming arrangement. The Government will use the Relevancy rating system described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, dated August 20, 2022, Table 4. Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method.

Quality of Products or Services Past Performance will be evaluated for Quality of Products or Services. The Government will evaluate Offeror’s performance, general trends, and the usefulness of the information available and incorporate these into the performance confidence assessment. The Government will not provide a separate quality assessment rating; rather, the past performance confidence assessment rating per the DoD Source Selection Procedures, dated August 20, 2022, Table 5. Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method, is based on the offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance.

Sources Of Past Performance Information For Evaluation The Government may use all of the following in its evaluation of Past Performance

· Information may be provided by the offeror per Section L of this solicitation

· Information obtained from the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS)

· Defense Contract Management Agency

No Past Performance Information In the case of Offerors for which there is no information on past contract performance or where past contract performance information is not available, the Offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on Factor 3. Per FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv).

In this case, the Offeror’s past performance is unknown and assigned a performance confidence rating of “neutral.”

The Government may determine that a “Substantial Confidence” or “Satisfactory Confidence” Past Performance rating is worth more than a “Neutral Confidence” Past Performance Rating.

Evaluation Options All options under the contract will be evaluated as indicated above; however, evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

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.

image1.jpg image2.png image3.png