_DRAFT SECTION M.pdf

W9113M-21-R-0060 USASMDC SIMULATION CENTER (SimCtr)

B. BASIS FOR AWARD (SECTION M).

The Government intends to make an award without discussions, but reserves the right to hold discussion, if needed.

The award will be made based on the best overall (i.e., best value) proposal that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the three evaluation factors: Technical, Management and Cost/Price. The Technical Factor is more important than the Management Factor and the Management Factor is more important than the Cost/Price Factor. When combined, the non-costs factors are more important than the Cost/Price Factor. There are no subfactors for any of the factors and numerical weightings (i.e., assigning points or percentages to evaluation factors) will not be utilized.

In order to be eligible for contract award, an offeror must be rated at least “Acceptable” in both the Technical Factor and Management Factor, respectively, and must present a probable cost that is evaluated to be reasonable and realistic under the Cost/Price Factor. Furthermore, an offeror must possess an adequate accounting system in order to receive an award, and the contract will be awarded only to an offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with FAR 9.104, as supplemented. If the offeror is a joint venture, SBA approval of the joint venture agreement must be obtained in order for the offeror to be eligible for contract award.

The Government will select for award the proposal that is most advantageous and represents the best overall value to the Government, considering the Technical, Management, and Cost/Price Factors. Therefore, the Government may select for award the offeror whose proposed cost is not the lowest, but whose Technical and Management proposal is sufficiently more advantageous to justify the payment of a higher cost. Conversely, the Government may select for award the offeror whose proposed cost is lower than other proposals that are not sufficiently more advantageous to justify the payment of a higher cost.

To arrive at the source selection decision, the source selection authority will consider the evaluation results of the source selection team, but will arrive at an independent decision and selection of the responsible offeror whose proposal represents the best value to the Government.

The Government intends to award one contract as a result of this solicitation; however, the Government reserves the right not to award a contract depending on the quality of the proposal(s) submitted and the availability of funds.

C. FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED.

The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal: Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors described below. The Government reserves the right to make award based upon the Cost/Price factor in the event that the Technical and Management factor evaluation results of all the offerors’ proposals are substantially the same.

1. FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL.

The Government will assess the offeror’s ability to support the technical requirements of the PWS as discussed below; the evaluation will be based upon the assessed significant strengths, significant weaknesses, strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies of the proposal per the definitions in section D below. The Technical Factor shall be rated in accordance with the rating scheme provided in Table 2 below (note that Table 3 is used to provide a description of risk). The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, significant strengths, and deficiencies in determining the Technical Factor rating. There are no subfactors for this factor and numerical weightings (i.e., assigning points or percentages to evaluation factors) will not be utilized.

a. Technical Approach.

The evaluation will assess the adequacy of the offeror’s technical approach for successfully supporting PWS Sections 2.0 – 2.1.5, to include all subsections. The evaluation will also assess the completeness of the offeror’s identification of critical support requirements associated with the technical objectives of the PWS, and the detailed proposed technical solutions (methodologies, processes, and procedures) for accomplishing those requirements. The evaluation will further assess the consistency of the proposed labor resource mix, to include labor hours, with the planned technical solutions and its sufficiency for accomplishing the overall PWS requirements. Finally, the proposed total DPPHs and corresponding Full Time Equivalency for each labor category on all labor CLINs (i.e., base labor and optional surge labor) will aid in determining appropriateness of the proposed Technical Approach. Any Technical findings related to the offeror’s proposed labor hour skill mix will result in adjustments to the offeror’s proposed price in the calculation of the “evaluated cost.”

b. Key Personnel.

The evaluation will assess proposed key personnel qualifications via one (1) resume for each of the key personnel labor category identified within the solicitation (a total of 4 resumes). Resumes shall be restricted to three (3) pages per individual and are included in the page limitation for this volume (double sided pages may be used, but each side counts as one page).

The evaluation will assess the depth and breadth of their overall qualifications (i.e., levels of education, experience, training, security clearance, certifications) for executing the proposed technical approach(es) and adequately supporting the PWS performance requirements, as well the extent to which proposed key personnel experiences are relevant to the PWS performance requirements.

2. FACTOR 2: MANAGEMENT.

The Government will assess the offeror’s ability to manage the requirements of the PWS Section 3.0 – 3.7, to include all subsections with the exception of sections 3.1.3, 3.6, and 3.7. The evaluation will be based upon the assessed significant weaknesses, significant strengths, strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies of the proposal per the definitions in section D below. The Management Factor shall be rated in accordance with the rating scheme provided in Table 2 (note that Table 3 is used to provide a description of risk). The combined management/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the significant strengths, significant weaknesses, strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining the Management Factor rating. There are no subfactors for this factor and numerical weightings (i.e., assigning points or percentages to evaluation factors) will not be utilized.

a. Personnel Systems.

To ensure that the offeror’s personnel system(s) can support executing the PWS performance requirements, the evaluation will assess the viability of the offeror’s proposed corporate mechanisms (practices, policies, procedures, and tools) for recruiting, retaining, and replenishing (when necessary) a sufficient number of qualified personnel with the requisite knowledge, skills, education, and experience to ensure successful accomplishment of the proposed technical and management approaches throughout the life of the contract (at a minimum the Government will assess how the offeror will address recruitment and hiring practices, termination policies and procedures, employee development tools, and compensation policies).

The evaluation will also assess the offeror’s Total Professional Employee Compensation Plan (for the prime offeror and all major subcontractors) in accordance with FAR 52.222-46 to assure that it reflects a clear understanding of contract requirements, the ability to provide uninterrupted high-quality work, and the capability to obtain and keep qualified professional personnel to meet mission objectives.

b. Management Control System.

The evaluation will assess the adequacy of the offeror’s management structure for controlling all technical, schedule, and cost aspects of contract performance. The assessment will assess roles, responsibilities, and authorities of the program manager (PM) and how the PM’s authorities will be used within the structure to ensure the efficient direction and control of contract work requirements, the early identification and resolution of performance issues, and the timely assessment, control and reporting of the entire team’s technical, schedule, and cost performance.

c. Transition Plan.

The evaluation will assess the adequacy of the offeror’s proposed plan for providing a seamless assumption of all PWS requirements with minimal impact to on-going SimCtr support activities. The evaluation will also assess the extent of the offeror’s identification and understanding of the required transition tasks, the appropriateness of the proposed transition staffing plan, and the effectiveness of the planned approach for implementing the transition tasks with minimal impact to ongoing SimCtr support activities and current performance schedules.

3. FACTOR 3: COST/PRICE.

a. The Government will conduct a cost realism analysis of each proposal to ascertain an offeror’s understanding of the PWS requirements and to determine the probable cost of performance for each offeror. The evaluation will focus on the realism of each offeror’s proposed costs, including that of the prime offeror and proposed subcontractors, for its ability to support contract requirements with sufficiently qualified personnel. The cost realism analysis shall include a review of the specific elements of proposed costs to determine whether the estimated cost elements are realistic for the work to be performed; reflect a clear understanding of the requirements; and are consistent with the proposed methods of performance described in the offeror’s technical and management proposals. If the aggregate of the prime offeror’s and all major subcontractor’s/team member’s proposed labor costs do not account for at least 75% of the total proposed labor costs, the proposal may be considered unacceptable and ineligible for award due to the Government’s inability to assess the realism of a substantial portion of proposed labor costs. In order to be considered for award, an offeror’s cost/price proposal must be determined reasonable, realistic, and affordable.

b. The procedures at FAR 15.404-1(c) and (d) will be utilized in the cost realism analysis of prime offeror and major subcontractor estimated base labor cost rates and indirect cost rates applicable to labor, material, ODC, and travel/DBA. The proposed rates, factors, and expenses shall be examined to substantiate utilization of consistent forward pricing procedures/rates, if applicable, or rates and factors ordinarily utilized by the offeror in proposals if no negotiated or recommended forwarding pricing rates exists.

The examination may include DCAA audit/review, DCMA review, internal analysis of an offeror’s current and/or historical cost data related to direct and indirect expenses, offeror’s projected expenses and expense pools, or any other means determined appropriate by the Government. Prime offeror and major subcontractor proposed cost rates and factors will be adjusted to reflect any increases or reductions in cost elements to realistic levels based on the results of the cost realism analysis.

The results of the cost realism evaluation will determine the probable cost of performance as it relates to the technical approach proposed by each offeror and will be utilized in the selection of the offer that provides the best value to the Government. As part of the cost realism analysis to determine the probable cost, the Government will calculate an evaluated cost by adjusting each offeror’s proposed cost to reflect any additions or reductions in cost elements to realistic levels based on the results of the cost realism analysis. The evaluated cost may differ from the proposed cost and will reflect the Government’s best estimate of the cost that is most likely to result from the offeror’s proposal. If the total evaluated cost is higher than the proposed cost, the total evaluated cost will be used in the probable cost. If the total evaluated cost is lower than the proposed cost, the proposed cost will be used in the probable cost.

It is anticipated that the analysis of minor subcontractor costs will be limited to an assessment of the adequacy of the prime offeror’s cost/price analysis of those costs.

However, the Government reserves the right to employ its own review of minor subcontractor cost elements to determine whether they are realistic and reasonable utilizing one or more of the price analysis techniques specified at FAR 15.404-1(b), or to employ the detailed cost analysis procedures of FAR 15.404-1(c) and (d) if deemed appropriate by the responsible KO.

c. Realism and/or reasonableness concerns for which adjustments cannot be adequately quantified, or cost structures considered too low, too high, or unbalanced, as defined in FAR 15.404-1(g), to support anticipated contract requirements with sufficiently qualified personnel may be considered unacceptable and ineligible for award.

d. The offeror’s proposed fee dollars will be utilized in the Government’s evaluation.

Fixed fee shall be assessed to ensure the proposed amount does not exceed 15 percent of the contract’s estimated cost, excluding fee, as prescribed by FAR 15.404- 4(c)(4)(i)(A). The proposal of a fixed fee exceeding 15 percent may render the offeror ineligible for award.

e. The probable rates and cost factors (and proposed fixed fee as applicable) shall be applied to the probable labor resource mix (as determined by the Government’s quantitative and qualitative analysis) and the solicitation-specified material, ODC, and travel cost estimates to calculate the offerors probable CPFF for the base effort and all options. As such, the probable CPFF may differ from the proposed CPFF and shall reflect the Government’s best estimate of the cost of contract performance that is most likely to result from the offeror’s proposal. If the calculated probable CPFF is lower than the proposed CPFF, then the proposed CPFF (excluding obvious mathematical errors and expressly unallowable costs) will be utilized as the probable CPFF.

f. The offeror’s cost proposal will further be evaluated to determine whether the overall cost/price the Government expects to pay is fair and reasonableness pursuant to FAR 15.404-1(b)(2).

g. The offeror's proposed allocation of labor costs will be evaluated to ensure that the limitations on subcontracting established by FAR 52.219-14 Limitations on Subcontracting (MAR 2020) (Deviation 2020-O0008) are met.

D. EVALUATION APPROACH.

All proposals shall be evaluated by the Source Selection Team (SST).

1. The overarching evaluation approach for all factors is as follows:

a. Adequacy of Response. The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the offeror’s methods and approach have adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirements specified in the RFP. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which each requirement has been addressed in the proposal in accordance with the proposal submission section of the RFP.

b. Feasibility of Approach. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the proposed approach is workable and the end results achievable. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which successful performance is contingent upon proven devices and techniques. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the offeror is expected to be able to successfully complete the proposed tasks and technical requirements within the required schedule.

2. Technical Factor and Management Factor (Non-Cost).

a. The Technical factor evaluates the offeror’s technical approach and key personnel as stated above in Section II.C above, while the Management factor evaluates the offeror’s personnel systems, management control system and transition plan as stated above in Section II.C above.

b. The Combined Technical/Risk Rating Methodology 2 prescribed by Section 3.1.2.2 of the DoD source selection procedures shall utilize to evaluate the non-cost proposals as outlined in the tables below. These ratings include the consideration of risk in conjunction with the significant strengths, significant weaknesses, strengths, weaknesses, and/or deficiencies identified in the evaluation of the Technical Factor and Management Factor, respectively, as described in Evaluation Factors section below (note that Table 3 provides a description for risk) There are no subfactors for any of the factors and numerical weightings (i.e., assigning points or percentages to evaluation factors) will not be utilized.

TABLE 2 – COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

Color Rating Description

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

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

TABLE 3 - Technical Risk Descriptions Adjectival Rating Description

Low Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor efforts and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which Is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome

As used in the rating scheme noted above and in the evaluation of proposals, Deficiency, Significant Weakness, Weakness, Significant Strength and Strength are defined below.

• Deficiency is a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. See FAR 15.001.

• Significant Weakness in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

• Weakness means a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

• Significant Strength is an aspect of an offeror’s proposal that has appreciable merit or appreciably exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be appreciably advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

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.

3. Cost/Price Factor. Adjectival ratings will not be used for offerors’ Cost/Price proposals. The Government will fully evaluate and negotiate all priced CLINs for award.

For award purposes, the total proposed price for all CLINs will be added together into a total sum (contract value). The evaluation of all option CLINs will not obligate the Government to exercise any option. Each offeror’s Cost/Price proposal will be evaluated as follows.

a. Cost Reimbursable Evaluation.

A cost realism analysis will be performed on the cost-reimbursement CLINs to determine whether specific estimated proposed cost elements are realistic for the work to be performed; reflect a clear understanding of the contract requirements; and are any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

consistent with the unique methods of performance described in the offeror’s Technical proposal. The realism analysis will also be used to evaluate the offeror’s understanding of contract technical requirements and the risk associated with the offeror’s Technical proposal. Therefore, the offeror is advised to clearly show justification for unique practices that significantly lower costs. The offeror’s cost-reimbursement proposal and estimates will be traced from the Cost/Price proposal volume basis of estimates to the performance of the requirements addressed in the Technical proposal. The Government will perform an evaluation of the technical elements contained within the offeror’s Cost/Price proposal to perform the PWS. The findings of this evaluation will be incorporated into the cost realism evaluation.

The results of the cost realism evaluation will determine the probable cost of performance as it relates to the technical approach proposed by each offeror and will be utilized in the selection of the offer that provides the best value to the Government. As part of the realism analysis, the Government will calculate an evaluated cost by adjusting each offeror’s proposed cost to reflect any additions or reductions in cost elements to realistic levels based on the results of the cost realism analysis. The evaluated cost may differ from the proposed cost and will reflect the Government’s best estimate of the cost that is most likely to result from the offeror’s proposal. If the total evaluated cost is higher than the proposed, the evaluated becomes the probable cost. If the total evaluated cost is lower than the proposed, the proposed becomes the probable cost.

b. Overall Cost/Price Proposal Evaluation: The overall Cost/Price proposal will be evaluated for the following.

1) Compliance. The Cost/Price proposal submitted by the offeror will be evaluated for compliance based upon the submission requirements contained in the Section L Cost/Price instructions.

2) Unbalanced Pricing. The offeror’s overall Cost/Price proposal will be evaluated for unbalanced pricing as defined in FAR 15.404-1(g). An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government (see FAR 15.404-1(g)(1) through FAR 15.404- 1(g)(3)).

3) Errors. The offeror’s Cost/Price proposal will be reviewed for errors. The offeror may be given an opportunity to clarify certain aspects of its proposal at the sole discretion of the contracting officer.

4) Business Systems. The Government will verify the adequacy of the offeror’s business systems.

5) Total Evaluated Price. The Total Evaluated Price consists of summing the offeror’s probable cost amount for Cost-Plus Fixed Fee CLIN prices (CLIN 0001 and CLIN 0002) and the probable cost amount for the cost-reimbursement Cost no fee

CLINs (CLIN 0003, CLIN 0004 and CLIN 0005).

-END OF DOCUMENT-