M_-SECTION_M_Revised_A0002.pdf

DJM-15-A32-R-0003

1st, 5th, and 8th Federal Judicial Circuits

M-1

PART IV – REPRESENTATION AND INSTRUCTIONS

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1 FAR 52.252-1 SOLICITATION PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY

REFERENCE (FEB 1998)

This solicitation incorporates one or more solicitation provisions by reference, having the same force and effects as if they were given in full text. Upon request, the CO 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 be submitted with its proposal 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 proposal or offer.

The full text of a solicitation provision may be accessed electronically at the links below:

http://www.acquisition.gov/far/

Federal Acquisition Regulation (48 CFR Chapter 1)

CLAUSE DATE TITLE

52.217-5 JULY 1990 Evaluation of Options

M.2 ELIGIBILITY FOR CONTRACT AWARD

In accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), no contract shall be entered into unless the CO ensures that all requirements of law, executive orders, regulations, and all other applicable procedures, including clearances and approvals, have been met. This includes the FAR requirement that no award shall be made unless the CO makes an affirmative determination of responsibility, meeting the general standards in FAR Part 9, and the special standards set forth in the solicitation paragraph L.7 Special Standards of Responsibility.

M.3 SOURCE SELECTION AND BASIS FOR AWARD

This acquisition will utilize competitive best value source selection procedures in accordance with FAR Part 15.101-1, as supplemented, in deciding which offeror represents the best overall value to the Government. The USMS will consider an offeror’s technical capability and past performance to be approximately equal to each other and when combined to be significantly more important than price. The evaluation will be performed against the requirements of this solicitation and in accordance with the evaluation factors set forth in Sections M.4 through M.6 below.

http://www.acquisition.gov/far/

M-2

The best value determination will be made as follows:

1) For each Circuit, the total evaluated price will be the determining factor for award among proposals that are considered substantially equal with regards to non-price factors. That is, where the USMS determines that the non-price factors of each offeror are not significantly different among competing proposals, then the proposal with the lowest evaluated price will be selected for award.

2) If the USMS determines that there are significant non-price factor differences among competitive proposals for each Circuit, then a more expensive proposal may be selected for award where the USMS determines that the value of the selected proposal is worth the price differential.

Past performance will be evaluated in accordance with FAR Subpart 42.1503 and as set forth in Section M.5 below.

An Equal Opportunity Compliance pre-award review is required.

In addition to evaluation of the previously discussed factors, the Government will consider the acceptability of the offeror’s submitted Business Proposal’s subcontracting plan in accordance with FAR Subpart 19.705-4.

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and make awards without discussions.

Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal shall contain their best terms from a technical, past performance, and price standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if later determined necessary by the CO.

The Government may reject all proposals if such action is in the public interest and waive informalities and minor irregularities in proposals received.

By submission of its offer, the offeror accepts all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements.

Basis of Award: The Government will make one award per Circuit to the responsible offeror proposing the best value to the Government overall, considering technical rating, past performance, and price for each Circuit.

M.4 TECHNICAL EVALUATION FACTORS

The Government will utilize the following Adjectival Color Rating Scheme when rating technical proposals. The evaluator will select one of the adjectival ratings that most clearly reflect the assessment of the proposal, based on the established evaluation criteria.

Should the evaluators be unable to come to a consensus rating, the evaluation report may

M-3 include the majority conclusion and the dissenting view to determine the consensus rating. Price will not receive an adjectival rating.

Adjective Color Definition Excellent Blue Satisfies all Government requirements with extensive detail to indicate a thorough understanding of the technical factor and how it relates to successful performance of the contract, and offers numerous significant strengths, which are not offset by weaknesses, with an overall low degree of risk in meeting the Government’s requirements.

Good Green Satisfies all Government requirements with ample detail to indicate a good understanding of the technical factor and how it relates to successful performance of the contract, and offers some significant strengths, which are not offset by weaknesses, with a low degree of risk in meeting the Government’s requirements.

Satisfactory Yellow Satisfies all Government requirements with sufficient detail to indicate a reasonable understanding of the technical factor and how it relates to successful performance of the contract, with a moderate degree of risk in meeting the Government’s requirements.

Marginal Orange Satisfies some Government requirements with little detail to indicate a minimal understanding of the technical factor and how it relates to successful performance of the contract, with an overall high degree of risk in meeting the Government’s requirements.

Unacceptable Red Proposal contains a major error, omission, or deficiency that indicates a lack of understanding of the technical factor and cannot be cured without materially altering the technical elements of the proposal

A technical evaluation will be performed on each proposal in accordance with FAR Part 15.101-1 and FAR Part 15.305. The offeror shall clearly address each element of the proposal as required by Section L of this solicitation. Any proposal failing to address all of the elements in Section L may be considered indicative of the offeror’s lack of understanding in response to the Government’s requirements and may be considered unacceptable.

The proposals will be evaluated using the following three technical factors:

FACTOR 1: Recruitment Program and Vetting Applicants

FACTOR 2: Training and Qualifications Program

FACTOR 3: Quality Assurance/Quality Control Plan (QCP)

M-4

Factor 1: Recruitment Program and Vetting Applicants

The Government requires a timely multi-faceted and systematic recruitment program that independently verifies and filters potential applicants and provides qualified CSOs capable of meeting the CSO/LCSO Qualifications Standards required under SOW C.4.1.

At a minimum, the Government requires a separate written draft Standard Operating Procedures that describe specific processes used to independently verify all minimum qualifications, and demonstrate how the offeror intends to provide comprehensive oversight and quality control through recruiting, vetting, selecting and submitting the best qualified applicants from a pool of candidates. (See Section L.5.2.1, Factor 1)

Factor 2: Training and Qualifications

The Government requires an effective and efficient high quality continuous training program for CSOs/LCSOs performing under this contract. Phase I Orientation is required for all new CSOs, and generally occurs individually. To facilitate academic instruction, the Government requires an integrated web-based Learning Management System (LMS). It shall be accessible from any computer with Internet access by an invitation-provided user ID and password format, track individual user data, and be capable of handling multiple users and classes simultaneously. The system shall be adaptable and capable of being used with other training requirements or opportunities as appropriate.

The SOW requires various types of training, lesson plans, certified instructors and weapons qualification instructors, various delivery methods including an established LMS capable of immediately supporting an approved training plan, advanced planning, various documentation and record maintenance. All types require a preapproved annual training plan.

As a minimum, the offeror shall acknowledge all training and qualification requirements identified in the SOW to include all training administration requirements. (See Section L.5.2.1, Factor 2)

Factor 3: Quality Assurance/Quality Control Plan (QCP)

The Government requires the Contractor to have two efficient and effective Quality Assurance Programs to include two Quality Control Plans (QCPs) as required under SOW C.25. The first program/plan is a CSO QCP, the second is a Corporate QCP.

As a minimum, the offeror shall discuss critical SOW and contract requirements to ensure the Contractor provided products, services conform to contract requirements, standards, and the design/detailed Statement of Work. Additionally, the Corporate QCP shall address corporate management and oversight responsibilities to ensure contract compliance, management of key personnel, the delivery of complete and timely contract performance and administrative responsibilities. The representation of corporate

M-5 structure and should identify key personnel and their responsibilities related to contract management and oversight. (See Section L.5.2.1, Factor 3)

M.5 PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION FACTORS

The Government will seek recent and relevant performance information on all offerors based on (1) the references provided by the offeror and (2) data independently obtained from other government and commercial sources. Relevant present/past performance is defined as effort involving a similar scope and similar magnitude of effort and complexity as this solicitation requires. Offerors with no relevant past or present performance history or the offeror’s performance record is so limited that no assessment rating can be reasonably assigned, will receive a rating “Neutral”, meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably. Past Performance will be evaluated in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2) and the following Table:

Adjective Color Definition Substantial Blue The Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Acceptable Green The Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform with required effort.

Unacceptable Red The Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Yellow No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

M.6 PRICE EVALUATION:

The Government will perform a price analysis of the offeror’s business/price proposal in accordance with FAR Part 15. The Government will also evaluate proposals to determine price reasonableness pursuant to FAR Subpart 15.4, Contract Pricing.

For evaluation and award purposes only, the offeror shall apply the published Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBA) for hourly wage and benefit rates for the period October 1, 2015 through September 30, 2016, for the base year period and subsequent option years.

If no other rates are published for the option periods, use the base year CBA rates for all years. For example, if a published CBA has rates for the base year, option year one, option year two, and then the CBA expires, offerors shall apply the applicable rates for the base through option year two and use option year two rates through option year four. A price adjustment may be requested in accordance with FAR 52.222-43, Fair Labor Standards Act and Service Contract Act – Price Adjustment (Multiple Year and Option Contracts) as new CBA rates are published. Offerors shall incorporate any published direct labor rates into their price proposal for all period beyond September 30, 2016.

M-6

The Government also requires the offeror to provide fully burdened hourly rates for the Circuits proposed to include all sites designated under a given Circuit.

Offerors are also cautioned that partially submitted or omitted price offers will be evaluated as unacceptable and may be disqualified from further consideration for award.

The Price Summary Sheets and Pricing Template shall be completed in their entirety, see Section J Attachment 1(D) and Attachment 1(E).

For award purposes, the Government will independently evaluate each Circuit and the offeror’s overall price for the base period and the respective four option periods. This information must be presented on the Price Summary Sheets provided in Section J – Attachment 1(D). The total evaluated price will consist of the following:

NOTE: For evaluation purposes, the base period will consist of 12 months. Likewise, each subsequent option period will consist of 12 months.

(1) Base Contract Period

The unit prices proposed for the Burdened Hourly Rate, Start-up Costs, Soft Body Armor Kit, SSO Uniform Standard, and Overtime Burdened Hourly Rate, listed in Section J, Attachment 1(D), shall be multiplied by the corresponding estimated number of positions and the estimated effort listed below:

Basic Rate – 1910 estimated hours per year for each position

Start-up Costs – Start-up Costs and Other Direct Costs as applicable to each LCSO/CSO

Overtime Rate – 20 hours per year for each position

Soft Body Armor Kit – as estimated by the Government for each contract period.

SSO Uniform Standard – Not applicable.

(2) Option Periods

The price for each Option Period will be determined in the same manner as those for the Base Contract Period using the corresponding CBA rates for that year, if applicable.