Sec_M_10122017.docx

RFP # D17PS00077

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

52.252-1 SOLICITATION PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE (FEB 1998)

This solicitation incorporates one or more solicitation provisions by reference, with the same force and effect as if they were given in full text. Upon request, the Contracting Officer will make their full text available. The offeror is cautioned that the listed provisions may include blocks that must be completed by the offeror and submitted with its quotation or offer. In lieu of submitting the full text of those provisions, the offeror may identify the provision by paragraph identifier and provide the appropriate information with its quotation or offer. Also, the full text of a solicitation provision may be accessed electronically at this/these address(es): http://farsite.hill.af.mil/vffar1.htm.

(End of provision)

SOLICITATION PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Number Title Date

52.217-5 Evaluation of Options JUL 1990

SOLICITATION PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY FULL TEXT

Number Title Date

52.222-46 Evaluation of Compensation for FEB 1993 Professional Employees

(a) Re-competition of service contracts may in some cases result in lowering the compensation (salaries and fringe benefits) paid or furnished professional employees. This lowering can be detrimental in obtaining the quality of professional services needed for adequate contract performance. It is therefore in the Government’s best interest that professional employees, as defined in 29 CFR 541, be properly and fairly compensated. As part of their proposals, offerors will submit a total compensation plan setting forth salaries and fringe benefits proposed for the professional employees who will work under the contract. The Government will evaluate the plan to assure that it reflects a sound management approach and understanding of the contract requirements. This evaluation will include an assessment of the offeror’s ability to provide uninterrupted high-quality work. 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. Supporting information will include data, such as recognized national and regional compensation surveys and studies of professional, public and private organizations, used in establishing the total compensation structure.

(b) The compensation levels proposed should reflect a clear understanding of work to be performed and should indicate the capability of the proposed compensation structure to obtain and keep suitably qualified personnel to meet mission objectives. The salary rates or ranges must take into account differences in skills, the complexity of various disciplines, and professional job difficulty. Additionally, proposals envisioning compensation levels lower than those of predecessor contractors for the same work will be evaluated on the basis of maintaining program continuity, uninterrupted high-quality work, and availability of required competent professional service employees. Offerors are cautioned that lowered compensation for essentially the same professional work may indicate lack of sound management judgment and lack of understanding of the requirement.

(c) The Government is concerned with the quality and stability of the work force to be employed on this contract. Professional compensation that is unrealistically low or not in reasonable relationship to the various job categories, since it may impair the Contractor’s ability to attract and retain competent professional service employees, may be viewed as evidence of failure to comprehend the complexity of the contract requirements.

(d) Failure to comply with these provisions may constitute sufficient cause to justify rejection of a proposal.

(End of provision)

M.1 BASIS FOR AWARD AND EVALUATION PROCESS

The Government anticipates awarding two IDIQ contracts and two Day One Task Orders (one for each IDIQ contract). While these awards will be made at the same time, the procedures for evaluation and award of the IDIQ contracts differ from the procedures applicable to the evaluation and award of the Day One Task Orders. As stated in FAR 12.203, evaluation and award of the IDIQ contracts will follow the policies and procedures prescribed in FAR Part 12 - Acquisition of Commercial Items in conjunction with the policies and procedures prescribed in FAR Part 15 - Contracting by Negotiation and FAR Subpart 16.5 - Indefinite Delivery Contracts. The evaluation and award of the Day One Task Orders, as well as all future Task Orders, will follow the policies and procedures specific to ordering from IDIQ contracts detailed in FAR 16.505 - Ordering.

IDIQ contract(s) will be awarded with the same range of services available for ordering and provide identical baseline counselor footprints. For reference, the baseline counselor footprints are included in Section L - Attachment 1 - Baseline Footprint. The Government reserves the right if two or more offerors cannot provide the baseline number of counselors, the IDIQs may not have identical baseline counselor footprints. The IDIQ contract(s) awarded will have a maximum combined aggregate estimated ceiling value of $4.3 billion over a one-year Base Period and nine, one-year Option Periods for a total potential period of performance of 10 years. The IDIQ contract(s) will be awarded with a pricing structure consisting of fully-burdened Fixed Daily Rates and fully burdened Fixed Hourly Rates (Refer to Section B – IDIQ Pricing). These rates shall provide the maximum allowable rates within which all task order pricing must be quoted. Future Task Orders may be solicited and awarded on a Firm-Fixed-Price, Labor Hour or Time and Materials basis.

IDIQ Contract Evaluation and Basis for Award

This is a performance-based, competitive, best value acquisition. Contract awards resulting from this solicitation will be made to the responsible offerors whose offer conforms to the solicitation and is determined to represent the best value to the Government. The Government anticipates that two IDIQ contracts will be awarded but reserves the right to make single, multiple, or no IDIQ award(s) as determined to be in the best interest of the Government.

Evaluation Process

The Government will perform a two-step evaluation process. Step 1 consists of a “Go/No Go” Factor that is rated on a pass/fail basis. Those offerors that pass through to Step 2 will go through a full technical and price evaluation.

Offerors should take note that a proposal that simply rephrases or restates the Government’s requirements and does not provide convincing rationale to address how the offeror intends to meet the requirements, will be deemed as unacceptable and removed from the competition. Offerors are further cautioned that “parroting” of the Performance Work Statement (PWS) with a statement of intent to perform does not reflect understanding of the requirement or capability to perform. Proposals that do not conform to the requirements of the solicitation may be rejected without further evaluation, deliberation or discussion.

After a full evaluation of the proposals in Step 2, the Government will use a tradeoff award process in accordance with FAR 15.101-1. Under the tradeoff process, the Government reserves the right to make an award to other than the lowest priced offeror or the highest technically rated offeror, if the Source Selection Authority (SSA) determines that to do so would result in the greatest value to the Government Offerors are advised that proposals with the lowest price may not be chosen for award if a higher priced proposal is determined, by evaluation of the proposals according to established evaluation factors, to be more advantageous to the Government. In such case, the superiority of the successful offer in areas other than price would justify the added expenditure.

52.212-2 Evaluation - Commercial Items OCT 2014

(a) The Government will award a contract(s) resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror(s) whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be the most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered including risk. The following factors will be used to evaluate offers:

See below.

(b) Options. The pricing at the IDIQ level is included in the evaluation of options.

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) or optional CLINs.

(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)

The following evaluation process/factors are applicable as described below:

Step 1 IDIQ Go/No Go Factor: The evaluation process for the IDIQ contracts begins with one “Go/No Go” Factor.

An offeror meeting all of the following minimum requirements will receive a “Go” and proceed to Step 2 of the evaluation. An offeror not meeting both of the following certification requirements will receive a “No Go” and be eliminated from the competition without further consideration.

a. Certification of the IDIQ Baseline Footprint - The offeror must certify that they have the ability to provide the quantity of credentialed counselors (including any subcontracted counselors) for a nationwide and overseas network of counselors available for immediate assignment at the locations listed in Section L - Attachment 1- IDIQ Baseline Footprint. That is, the offeror is certifying in the IDIQ Baseline Footprint that they can provide all the required credentialed counselors at all the locations specified in the footprint without exception. Further, the offeror certifies the above by signing the certification included in Section L - Attachment 1.

b. Certification of Counselor Credentials - The offeror must certify that the counselors for the Baseline Footprint have the following mandatory credentials and qualifications:

i. All Contractor personnel performing this requirement must be a U.S. citizen, and must speak fluent English.

ii. All counselors possess a Master’s degree or Ph.D. from an accredited graduate program in a mental health related field such as social work, psychology, marriage/family therapy, or counseling; a valid unrestricted counseling license or certification from a state, the District of Columbia, a U.S. territory or commonwealth that grants authority to provide counseling services as an independent practitioner in their respective fields; and demonstrated counseling competence preceding their employment with the MFLC program.

iii. All counselors shall be licensed or certified and properly credentialed to perform this requirement and shall be compliant with industry accepted standards for the performance of non-medical counseling.

iv. All counselors for assignments in the 50 states shall be licensed or certified in the state in which the participant is receiving services. For OCONUS assignments (excluding Alaska and Hawaii) counselors may be licensed or certified in any state, the District of Columbia, a U.S. territory or commonwealth.

An offeror receiving a “Go” to the IDIQ “Go/No Go” Factor proceeds to Step 2 in the evaluation process. If at least two or more offerors are not a “Go” to the “Go/No Go” Factor, then all offerors proceed to Step 2. . The Contracting Officer shall notify offerors promptly in writing if they receive a "Go/No Go" after Step 1 of the “Go/No Go” Factor that is rated on a pass/fail basis.

Step 2 Full IDIQ Technical and Price Evaluation:

Overview of IDIQ Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

Factor A - Technical Capabilities and Management Subfactor 1 – Technical Capabilities Subfactor 2 – Program Management Subfactor 3 – Travel Management Plan Factor B - Task Order Scalable Capacity and Technical Approach Subfactor 1 – Task Order Scalable Capacity Subfactor 2 – Task Order Technical Approach Factor C - Subcontracting Subfactor 1 – Subcontracting Plan Subfactor 2 – Small Business Commitment Factor D - Past Performance Subfactor 1 – Organizational Experience Subfactor 2 – Past Performance Factor E – Price

Evaluation Factor Order of Importance

· Evaluation Factors A, B, C, D, and E are in descending order of importance.

· Technical Factors A, B, C, and D when combined are more important than Factor E.

· Factor A Subfactors 1, 2, and 3 are in descending order of importance.

· Factor B Subfactors 1 and 2 are in descending order of importance.

· Factor C Subfactors 1 and 2 are equal.

· Factor D Subfactors 1 and 2 are in descending order of importance.

Detailed Description of IDIQ Evaluation Factors

Factor A - Technical Capabilities and Management

Subfactor 1 – Technical Capabilities: The Government will evaluate the degree to which the offeror effectively demonstrates the technical capabilities to deliver and sustain the required capacity and capability for adult (adult MFLC counseling), and child and youth behavioral (MFLC-CYB counseling) non-medical counseling services by trained, licensed, credentialed, and experienced counselors for the duration of all counselor assignments.

Subfactor 2- Program Management: The Government will evaluate the degree to which the offeror effectively demonstrates a program management capability, and organizational structure (to include a representative staffing plan) to manage the services described in the PWS. This includes a demonstration of the following: a successful quality control plan; recruitment, training and orientation program; an effective approach to provide timely and accurate records and reports; and a systematic and comprehensive invoicing approach that ensures the submission of timely, accurate, and complete invoices. Additionally, the Government will evaluate the effectiveness of a proposed training program for counselors, so that the counselors have an understanding of military culture and lifestyle.

Further, the Government will evaluate the evidence shown in resumes for currency, quality, and depth of experience of Key Personnel (refer to Section C PWS, paragraph 7.2) in working on similar projects for Federal, State or local government as well as commercial firms. Similar projects are meant to convey similarity in topic, dollar value, workload, duration, and complexity.

Subfactor 3 – Travel Management Plan: The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Travel Management Plan demonstrates the offeror’s capability to manage all logistics regarding CONUS and OCONUS travel in accordance with the PWS and Section B.9 Travel, and minimize the need for travel.

Factor B - Task Order Scalable Capacity and Technical Approach

While the evaluation and award of the IDIQ contracts is a separate process from evaluation and award of the Task Orders, the evaluation of the IDIQs will take into consideration the proposed Scalable Capacity and Technical Approach on the Task Order level.

Subfactor 1 – Task Order Scalable Capacity: The Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror demonstrates a scalable capacity of counselors exceeding the Baseline Footprint quantities. Scalable capacity is needed to fulfill footprint quantity fluctuations which may include the addition of counselors, short term surge, camps, and on-demand support requirements. While any information in the offeror’s proposal may be considered, this evaluation will heavily depend on the scalable capacity data provided in the tables in Section L - Attachment 2 -Task Order Scalable Capacity. Further, the offeror certifies the above by signing the certification tab in Section L - Attachment 2 that the counselors in the scalable capacity are available at the time of contract award, and they meet the same credentialing requirements described above in “Go/No Go” Factor Step 1b Certification of Counselor Credentials. No double counting of counselors is permitted in fulfilling the baseline and scalability capacity requirements for counselors.

Subfactor 2 – Task Order Technical Approach: The Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror successfully demonstrates an understanding of the PWS, and an innovative, thorough and sound approach to execution of the requirement in its entirety at the Task Order level. The technical approach will also be evaluated based on an approach to managing the baseline number of counselors and necessary additional counselors, possibly with short notice from the Government, within the proposed scalable capacity.

Factor C - Subcontracting

Subfactor 1 – Subcontracting Plan: The Government will evaluate subcontracting plans in accordance with the Small Business Rating Method in Section M.7 of the solicitation based on whether or not the offeror’s subcontracting plan conforms to the following.

a) The requirements of FAR Subpart 19.7 – The Small Business Subcontracting Program, unless exempted pursuant to FAR 19.702(b)(1).

b) The overall goal of 20% small business subcontracting, that is, 20% of the total proposed contract value inclusive of all costs, shall be allocated to small businesses overall.

c) Of the overall 20% goal, the offeror’s subcontracting plan shall address subcontracting goals for various socioeconomic programs as follows: HUBZone Small Business 3%; Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) 3%; Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB) 3%; Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) 5%; Women-Owned Small Business (WOSB) 5; and Ability One (1%).

Subfactor 2 – Small Business Commitment: The Government will evaluate the offeror’s small business commitment document in accordance with the Small Business Rating Method in Section M.7 of the solicitation based on the extent to which the offeror has committed to utilizing small business, small businesses across socio-economic categories, and AbilityOne. This is the commitment document along with the table of small business, socio-economic categories and AbilityOne with the percent of participation relative to contract value.

Factor D - Past Performance

Subfactor 1 – Organizational Experience: The Government will evaluate the degree to which the offeror effectively demonstrates recent (within the last three years of the date of the Government’s posting of this RFP) and relevant organizational experience, to deliver and sustain the required capacity and capability for adult (adult MFLC counseling), and child and youth behavioral (MFLC-CYB counseling) counseling by trained, licensed, credentialed, and experienced counselors for the duration of all counselor assignments.

Subfactor 2 – Past Performance: The Government will evaluate past performance of at least three references based on questionnaire responses for the prime offeror. In addition, the Government will evaluate at least two references for each proposed subcontractor expected to perform major or critical aspects of the requirement also based on questionnaire responses. The Government’s evaluation of past performance is based on an offeror’s probability of successfully meeting the solicitation requirements. The past performance evaluation will consider each offeror’s demonstrated: recent (within three years of the date of the Government’s posting of this RFP); relevant record of performance in providing services that meet the contract’s requirements; and quality including general trends in contractor performance and source of information. 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 and all subcontractors who, as previously stated, will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement as defined by the offeror.

There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy (similar size, scope and complexity) and quality (including general trends in contractor performance and source of information.)

· Recency: The Government will evaluate the recency of the offeror’s past performance of the time period within the last three years during which past performance references are considered relevant, and is critical to establishing the relevancy of past performance information.

· Relevance: The Government will evaluate how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to this requirement by giving consideration to those aspects of an 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 consider as aspects of relevancy include: similarity of service, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and extent of subcontracting/teaming.

For evaluation, the Government will utilize the Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method in Section M.7 Rating Method.

· Quality: The Government will evaluate the overall quality of the offeror’s past performance (see FAR 15.304(c)(2)) The Past Performance Evaluation Team will review all past performance information collected and determine the quality of the offeror’s performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate these into the performance confidence assessment. A separate quality assessment rating is not required; rather, the past performance confidence assessment rating is based on the offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance.

Sources of Past Performance Information for evaluation are as follows:

· Past performance from the questionnaire is tailored to the circumstances of this acquisition. Therefore, the Government will consider past performance with respect to and using the information provided in response to the Section L - Attachment 4 - Past Performance Questionnaire:

a. Quality of Product or Service;

b. Cost Control;

c. Timeliness of Performance;

d. Business Relations;

e. Effectiveness of Program Management/Program Oversight;

f. Key Personnel;

g. Subcontracts;

h. Small Business Subcontracting Plan; and

i. Customer Satisfaction.

The Government will evaluate the questionnaire responses for at least three examples of successful past performance for the prime offeror and at least two questionnaires of successful past performance for each proposed subcontractor that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement as defined by the offeror.

· In addition to the questionnaire and if determined necessary, the Government may obtain past performance information from any other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System, Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; the Defense Contract Management Agency; and interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Fee Determining Officials.

Verifying Past Performance Data

The Government may contact the offeror’s references/clients, if deemed necessary, to verify proposal information, which may include but is not limited to the type of work performed, contractor accountability, costs/prices, and completion dates. However, this is solely at the Government’s discretion and if so, may not contact all references in an offeror’s proposal.

Lack of Past Performance

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 may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv).) In this case, the offeror’s past performance is unknown and assigned a performance confidence rating of “Neutral Confidence.”

Adverse Past Performance

If adverse past performance is presented in the questionnaires or through other sources of past performance information, the Government may give offeror(s) an opportunity to clarify adverse past performance information. However, any such exchange of information does not constitute discussions. Based on the response provided by the offeror to the adverse past performance, the Government will evaluate in accordance with the Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method in Section M.7. If an offeror has not responded by the deadline provided by the Government to respond to the adverse past performance, then the adverse past performance will stand in the past performance evaluation and will be rated as either “Limited Confidence” or “No Confidence”.

Factor E - Price

a. The Government will evaluate the proposed prices. No adjectival ratings will be utilized for evaluating the proposed prices. The Government will assess the offeror’s price proposal with respect to being complete, fair and reasonable, and realistic. Proposals that include unrealistically low labor rates, or that do not otherwise demonstrate a realistic understanding of the technical requirement, will be considered a risk and will be evaluated for award in accordance with that assessment. The Government reserves the right to utilize information found in any other sections of the proposal that may assist in price evaluation. As part of the evaluation to determine fair and reasonable pricing, the Government may consider commercial published data, same or similar Government contracts, Government estimates, industry standards, DCAA audit information, and other information the Government deems relevant.

b. The evaluation of compensation, including compensation plan, for professional employees will be in accordance with FAR provision 52.222-46 - Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees.

c. The IDIQ(s) rates for the counselors will be evaluated by the counselor type (MFLC, CYB), type of service (Rotational, Surge, On Demand, etc., and counselor daily and hourly rates, as indicated in the IDIQ pricing tables for CONUS and OCONUS provided in the tables in Section B, entitled, “Section B - IDIQ Pricing”. Note that the labor rates for the IDIQ Price Proposal shall be the same as the labor rates for the Task Order Price Proposal, and they shall be the ceiling rates for the IDIQ contract. The total price calculated in the Task Order Price Proposal will represent the total evaluated price for the IDIQ contract and the Task Order. The total evaluated price will include the costs for travel and other direct costs (ODCs).

d. The Government may randomly select a standardized sample from the IDIQ pricing for evaluation purposes from the spreadsheets, for example of CONUS-Rotational, OCONUS-Rotational, and any other of the spreadsheets. The IDIQ rates will also be analyzed to determine if the unit prices are unbalanced in relation to counselor type, type of service, CONUS and OCONUS.

e. Option Periods will be analyzed to determine if the fixed daily rates and fixed hourly rates are unbalanced in accordance with 52.217-5- Evaluation of Options. Evaluation of Option Periods shall not obligate the Government to exercise the options

f. While price evaluation for the IDIQ is a separate process from Task Order price evaluation, the IDIQ price evaluation and award decisions will include consideration of the Task Order price evaluation including total evaluated Task Order pricing for both CONUS and OCONUS, travel costs, consistency of travel costs with the Travel Management Plan and all other elements specified under the Task Order price evaluation.

g. The Government will evaluate ODCs for consistency with their proposed solution and the offerors’ technical and price proposals. ODCs will be evaluated for fair and reasonable pricing.

h. Inconsistencies between the technical and price proposal, unbalanced pricing, or other pricing anomalies may be assessed as proposal risk under the evaluation.

Assumptions, Conditions, and/or Exceptions

The Government will evaluate all technical assumptions, conditions, or exceptions if they are acceptable, unacceptable, create risk or other concerns in relation to performance. The offeror is advised that taking any exceptions to the PWS, solicitation requirements, terms, or conditions of the solicitation may have an adverse effect on the evaluation rating. The Government reserves the right to not accept any exceptions to this solicitation. If the offeror does not state any assumptions, conditions, or exceptions, the Government assumes that the offeror agrees to comply with the requirements, terms, and/or conditions.

M.2 RESPONSIBILITY DETERMINATION

Contracts will be awarded to responsible Contractor(s) only, as defined in FAR Subpart 9.1 Responsible Prospective Contractors. As part of the responsibility determination, the Government will evaluate if an offeror successfully demonstrates an effective organizational conflict of interest risk management plan as defined in FAR Subpart 9.5 Organizational and Consultant Conflicts of Interest (also refer to Sections H.4 and H.5), including mitigation approach. Failure to mitigate organizational conflicts of interest may preclude award.

M.3 AWARD WITHOUT DISCUSSIONS

The Government reserves the right to award to the offeror whose proposal is determined by the SSA to be the best value on the basis of the initial proposal received without conducting discussions.

The Government reserves the right to hold discussions at any time including after the “Go/No Go” evaluation if deemed necessary.

Clarifications: Offerors may be given the opportunity to clarify certain aspects of the proposal or resolve minor or clerical errors in accordance with FAR 15.306.

M.4 COMPETITIVE RANGE/DISCUSSIONS

The Government reserves the right to establish the competitive range comprised of the most highly rated proposals based on the ratings of each proposal against all evaluation criteria, unless the range is further reduced for purposes of efficiency (see FAR 15.306(c)). If discussions are to be held, discussions will be conducted with only those offerors within the competitive range. If during discussions, an offeror’s proposal is not considered to be among the most highly rated proposals, the SSA may eliminate the proposal from consideration for award.

M.5 FINAL PROPOSAL REVISIONS

Once the decision is made to conclude discussions, each offeror still within the competitive range shall be given an opportunity to submit a Final Proposal Revision (FPR) by a common cutoff date and time. After receipt of the FPRs, the Source Selection Evaluation Board shall complete evaluation of the FPRs. The evaluation criteria from the solicitation shall continue to be the basis for evaluation.

M.6 TASK ORDER EVALUATION AND BASIS FOR AWARD

The Government anticipates issuing Day One Task Order award(s) for non-medical counseling services to fulfill the entire Baseline Footprint between each awarded IDIQ contract. It is expected that the Day One awarded Task Orders will at least satisfy the minimum guarantee under the contract. The Day One Task Order(s) will be for a Base Period of one-year and nine one-year Option Periods for consistency and continuity of services for non-medical counseling to service members and their families.

In accordance with FAR 52.216-18—Ordering and FAR 52.216-19—Order Limitations, the Government anticipates placing a Task Order award with each IDIQ contract holder for a minimum guarantee of $75 million which is inclusive of the Base Period and all Option Periods, against each IDIQ contract award.

The Day One Task Order award(s) will be made on a best value basis using a tradeoff award approach. Best value will be determined for each performance location. The resulting task order awards will be for the portion of the worldwide footprint in which the awardee represents the best value. The Government’s best value objective is to achieve the maximum coverage of quality counseling services at a competitive price. Achieving this objective requires the Government to maintain maximum flexibility in the division of the worldwide footprint. Task Order awards may make divisions by state, installation, counselor type, assignment type or a combination thereof.

If a tradeoff best value determination does not result in a Task Order award that at satisfies each IDIQ awardee’s minimum guarantee, the Government may utilize an exception to fair opportunity to satisfy the minimum guarantee in accordance with FAR 16.505(b)(2)(D). Based on the division of the footprint, the proposed travel and ODC amounts will be adjusted accordingly for consistency with the counseling services. The following are the evaluation factors for the Day One Task Order(s) in descending order of importance.

· Task Order Scalable Capacity

· Task Order Technical Approach

· Price

Task Order Scalable Capacity will be evaluated as follows:

The footprint as provided in the Section L, Attachment 2, Task Order Scalable Capacity specifies the minimum quantity of required counselors at each location. Scalable capacity is the quantity of proposed counselors above the minimum required baseline. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror demonstrates a scalable capacity of counselors exceeding the Baseline Footprint. Scalable capacity is needed to fulfill footprint quantity fluctuations which may include the addition of counselors, short term surge and on-demand support requirements. While any information in the offeror’s proposal may be considered, this evaluation will heavily depend on the scalable capacity data provided in the tables in Section L - Attachment 2 -Task Order Scalable Capacity. The completed Task Order Scalable Capacity spreadsheet will become an Attachment to the Task Order at award.

Task Order Technical Approach will be evaluated as follows:

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror successfully demonstrates an understanding of the PWS, and an innovative, thorough and sound approach to execution of the requirement in its entirety at the Task Order level. The technical approach will also be evaluated based on an approach to managing the baseline number of counselors and necessary additional counselors, possibly with short notice from the Government, within the proposed scalable capacity.

Task Order Price Evaluation:

The Government will evaluate the total Task Order pricing for both CONUS and OCONUS proposed in Section L - Attachment 3 - Task Order Pricing. The Government defines the total task order price as the sum of the services and related price over the term of the Task Order(s), including all optional quantities and option periods, transition, travel (no local travel for CONUS or OCONUS) and ODCs. Task Order line item prices will also be evaluated to determine if they are unbalanced.

Task Order travel costs will be evaluated for consistency with the offeror’s proposed travel management plan, other elements of the offerors proposal in relation to travel and historical travel data.

The Task Order CONUS travel costs will be evaluated to ensure that they are in accordance with Section B.9 Travel and consistent with the Government’s requirement for a nationwide presence of counselors. The evaluation of CONUS travel costs will be compared to the Travel Management Plan evaluated under the IDIQ Factor A, Subfactor 3.

The Government will evaluate ODCs for consistency with their proposed solution and other elements of the offeror’s proposal. ODCs will be evaluated for a fair and reasonable price.

Inconsistencies between the technical and price proposal, unbalanced pricing, or other pricing anomalies may be assessed as proposal risk under the evaluation. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more Task Order line items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. A proposal may be rejected if the SSA determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all option periods inclusive of optional CLINs to the total price for the basic requirement with consideration of partial awards based on the footprint inclusive of scalable capacity.

M.7 IDIQ AND TASK ORDER (as applicable) RATING METHODS

The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings.

The following ratings and corresponding definitions will be used to evaluate Factors A and B.

Table 1 – Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method

The following ratings and corresponding definitions will be used to evaluate Factor C -Subcontracting:

Small Business Rating Method

The following ratings and corresponding definitions listed in both tables below will be used to evaluate Factor D - Past Performance. Subfactor 1 Organizational Experience will be evaluated using the Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method only. Subfactor 2 Past Performance will be evaluated using both tables.

Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method

Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method

M.8 EVALUATION TERMS

The definition of terms used during the evaluation is as follows:

Section M, Page 16 of 16