Attachment 4 - Section M - Amendment 0004 - 10.05.2026.pdf

Attachment 4 – Amendment 0004

SECTION M - EVALUATION CRITERIA

FA2396-26-R-B008

SECTION M — EVALUATION CRITERIA

1.0 Section M Evaluation Criteria

1.1 SOURCE SELECTION

The evaluation criteria establish how the Government will make its selection for award, the number of awards contemplated, and how the various considerations and criteria interrelate. The results of the evaluation will be considered by the Government to determine which proposal(s) represents the best value to the Government.

2.0 General Provisions

2.1 General

The Government intends to competitively award, multiple Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contracts, utilizing the process of evaluation and the evaluation criteria described herein. This source selection will be conducted in accordance with Revolutionary Federal Acquisition Regulation Overhaul

(RFO) Part 15, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (R-DFARS), Department of War (DoW) Source Selection Procedures. These regulations are available electronically at the RFO Site: https://www.acquisition.gov/.

2.1.1 Cost or Price Evaluation Exclusion

Notwithstanding the above, in accordance with 10 U.S.C. § 3303(a)(1)(B) (formerly 10 U.S.C. §

2305(a)(3)(C)), as amended by Section 825 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal

Year 2017, the Government will not evaluate cost or price for the IDIQ contract. While offerors are required to submit binding Total ODC Indirect Burden and Handling Rate ceilings for contract incorporation purposes, these rates will not be evaluated for realism or reasonableness at the IDIQ level, nor will they factor into the IDIQ award decision. Price, including the application of the capped rates on

ODC, will be evaluated as a factor in the fair opportunity decision for each individual task order.

2.1.2 Responsibility and Conformity

Contract award will only be made to the Offerors who are deemed responsible in accordance with the

RFO Part 9, as supplemented, whose proposals conform to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, and certifications) and are judged, based on the evaluation factors, to represent the best value to the Government. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

https://www.acquisition.gov/

FA2396-26-R-B008

2.1.3 Technical Threshold and Self-Scoring

Contract award(s) will be made to all qualifying offerors whose proposals meet the established technical threshold. The Government will not rank-order proposals, and awards will be made to all responsible sources whose proposals are evaluated as technically acceptable (receiving the minimum qualifying score) for all evaluation factors. The evaluation will use a self-scoring system validated by the government. The burden of proof rests with the offeror to provide substantiating data sufficient to validate the self-score.

2.2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award a contract to all qualified offerors who meet an Acceptable rating for the Technical Experience Factor and all solicitation requirements.

2.3 Negotiations

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award contracts without negotiation. To prepare for that possibility, each initial proposal should contain the offeror’s complete proposal and the best terms.

If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold negotiations (IAW RFO 15.204), offeror responses to negotiations and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. If the offeror’s proposal has been determined to be acceptable at the time negotiations are closed, any changes or exceptions in the FPR are subject to evaluation and may increase the risk that the offeror’s proposal be determined to be unacceptable and thus, ineligible for award. Exchanges with offerors conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute negotiations.

2.4 Teaming

When proposing as a prime/subcontractor teaming arrangement, the Government will evaluate technical experience for prime offerors and subcontractor offerors. The prime offerors must account for at least 51% of the validated total evaluated points; subcontractors cannot account for more than 49% of the validated total evaluated points. If the prime offeror is a joint venture (JV), the Government will evaluate technical experience for that JV’s members, together both the mentor and the SB protégé, as a prime. The JV members, as the prime offeror, must account for at least 51% of the validated total evaluated points when the experience of the mentor and the SB protégé are added together;

subcontractors to the JV cannot account for more than 49% of the validated total evaluated points.

2.5 Process of Evaluation

The Government will make an award determination based on the evaluation process identified below.

Each offeror must receive a minimum technical experience score of 1,740 based on the Government-verified, offeror self-scored worksheet (RFP Attachment 5) described herein to receive a Technical

Experience Factor Rating of Acceptable. If an offeror’s proposal receives a Technical Experience Factor

Rating of Unacceptable, the proposal is ineligible for award.

FA2396-26-R-B008

3.0 EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR AWARD

3.1 Technical Experience Factor

The Technical Experience Factor is an evaluation of the offeror’s ability to meet the requirements for

Technical Experience. For the evaluation of technical experience, the Government will analyze the self-scoring worksheet used by each offeror to claim points in the five (5) technical identifications (IDs) and associated IDs. Offerors will receive an overall Technical Experience Rating in accordance with the ratings defined in Table 1.

RATING DEFINITION

Acceptable The offeror obtained a validated score of 1,740 points on the self-scoring worksheet and met required % criteria identified in Section M, paragraph 2.4.

Unacceptable The offeror did not obtain a validated score of 1,740 points on the self-scoring worksheet or did not meet the required % criteria identified in

Section M, paragraph 2.4.

Table 1: Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method

Technical Experience Assessment

Offerors will be evaluated on the ability to meet the minimum points required to be determined technically Acceptable. An offeror’s proposal has met the requirements of the technical element and is considered Acceptable, when the required minimum score of 1,740 is proposed and verified per the

Self-Scoring Worksheet. An offeror’s proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation and is considered Unacceptable when the minimum score of 1,740 points is not proposed OR cannot be verified per the Self-Scoring Worksheet. No additional credit or greater consideration for award is given for receiving greater than the minimum points required to be determined technically acceptable. Partial points will not be given for any technical ID. Some technical IDs on the Self-Scoring Worksheet are broken into subsequent IDs to allow offerors to receive a sub-set of the maximum allowable points. The

Government will use the contractor-provided substantiation documents to validate the points claimed on the Self-Scoring Worksheet. In order to verify points, the Government will evaluate the offeror’s demonstrated experience in the technical areas for which points are being claimed. The Government will not validate points claimed by the offeror for a technical experience when supporting documentation does not demonstrate the required experience. The Government shall not validate points using supporting documentation identified in other tabs within the Offeror’s proposal; only the supporting documentation within the respective tab shall be utilized in the government’s evaluation of validation.

FA2396-26-R-B008

3.3 Technical Experience

The evaluation criteria for determining the points earned for each of the five (5) technical IDs is listed below.

ID 1: Government Facility Clearance

1: Currently possess an active Government Secret Facility Clearance: The Offeror shall demonstrate a currently active Government Secret Facility Clearance. This technical ID is pass/fail and not based on points. If the offeror does not have an active Government Secret Facility Clearance, no further points can be claimed and the offeror will be rated unacceptable for Technical Experience Factor. JVs are rated

Acceptable if the JV or both individual member entities hold the Secret FCL.

Note regarding Top Secret Task Order Pool: While an active Secret FCL is a mandatory pass/fail requirement for basic contract award, the Government will also review optional submissions for a Top

Secret Task Order Pool (IAW Section L, para 5.2.5). The presence or absence of a Top Secret FCL will not be point-scored, will not factor into the minimum qualifying score of 1,740, and will not affect basic IDIQ award eligibility. It will be used solely to categorize awardees for future Top Secret task order solicitations.

ID 2: Multiple Locations (points are not cumulative)

2(a): Recruited, placed, and managed qualified personnel at 1–2 geographical locations during same period of performance. The Offeror shall demonstrate experience recruiting, placing, and managing qualified personnel at 1–2 geographical locations during same period of performance.

2(b): Recruited, placed, and managed qualified personnel at 3 or more geographical locations during same period of performance. The Offeror shall demonstrate experience recruiting, placing, and managing qualified personnel at 3 or more geographical locations during same period of performance.

ID 3: Experience Recruiting and Placing Qualified Personnel

The Offeror shall demonstrate experience recruiting qualified personnel for the Federal Government in the following areas:

• 3(a): Flight Medicine Physician Performing Human Research

• 3(b): Flight Medicine Physician Performing Education

• 3(c): Flight Medicine Physician Performing Patient Care

• 3(d): Physician Board Certified in Ophthalmology, Neurology, Cardiology, Pulmonology, Psychiatry

Performing Human Research

• 3(e): Physician Board Certified in Ophthalmology, Neurology, Cardiology, Pulmonology, Psychiatry

Performing Education

• 3(f): Physician Board Certified in Ophthalmology, Neurology, Cardiology, Pulmonology, Psychiatry

Performing Patient Care

• 3(g): Scientist(s)

• 3(h): Psychologist(s) Performing Human Research

• 3(i): Psychologist(s) Performing Patient Care

FA2396-26-R-B008

• 3(j): Information Technology Support Personnel

• 3(k): Data Scientist(s)

• 3(l): Certified Toxicologist(s)

• 3(m): Acquisition Program Manager(s) Research Program

• 3(n): Curriculum Developer(s)

• 3(o): Research Coordinator(s)

• 3(p): Public Health Specialist(s)

• 3(q): Engineer(s)

• 3(r): SCA Labor Categories

• 3(s): Recruited and placed onsite at a federal agency in Ohio a board-certified licensed ophthalmologist, neurologist, cardiologist, psychiatrist, or OB/GYN physician with experience in military medicine within the past 5 years. The Offeror shall demonstrate experience recruiting and placing qualified personnel onsite at a federal agency in Ohio.

• 3(t): Recruited and placed onsite at a federal agency in Ohio a program manager with all of the following qualifications: (a) minimum APDP Level II certification in Program Management, equivalent

PMP or PjMP certification, or at least five years’ program management experience in a military research environment; (b) experience reviewing contractor cost, schedule, and activity reports on research projects; and (c) experience performing cost, schedule and performance analysis. The

Offeror shall demonstrate experience recruiting and placing qualified personnel onsite at a federal agency in Ohio.

ID 4: Timeline

4(a): Filled vacancies with qualified employees within 15 business days for the Federal government:

The Offeror shall demonstrate experience filling vacancies with qualified employees within 15 business days for the Federal government.

4(b): Filled a position with qualified personnel within 14 days of contract award or POP start for the

Federal Government (points are not cumulative): The Offeror shall demonstrate filling positions with qualified personnel within 14 calendar days of contract award for the Federal Government. For the purposes of measuring this 14-day metric, if the referenced contract explicitly established an authorized

Period of Performance (POP) start date later than the initial award date, the 14-day metric shall be measured from that authorized POP start date.

• 4(b)(1): Filled a position with qualified personnel within 14 days of contract award or POP start for the Federal Government: The Offeror shall demonstrate filling positions with qualified personnel within 14 calendar days of contract award or authorized POP start for the Federal

Government – only 1 instance.

• 4(b)(2): Filled a position with qualified personnel within 14 days of contract award or POP start for the Federal Government: The Offeror shall demonstrate filling positions with qualified personnel within 14 calendar days of contract award or authorized POP start for the Federal

Government – 2 different instances.

FA2396-26-R-B008

• 4(b)(3): Filled a position with qualified personnel within 14 days of contract award or POP start for the Federal Government: The Offeror shall demonstrate filling positions with qualified personnel within 14 calendar days of contract award or authorized POP start for the Federal

Government – 3 different instances."

ID 5: Management

5(a): Managed employees requiring classified clearances: The Offeror shall demonstrate experience supervising employees requiring classified clearances at the Secret or Top-Secret level.

5(b): Managed Travel arrangements for contract employees in accordance with the JTR: The Offeror shall demonstrate experience completing all travel arrangements on a Government contract IAW JTR.

5(c): Provided corrective action plans to remedy concerns regarding employee performance and professionalism: The Offeror shall demonstrate experience providing corrective action plans that addressed and fixed concerns regarding employee performance and professionalism during performance of a government contract.

5(d): Provided to all employees an established Government/Contractor Relations Training: The Offeror shall demonstrate providing employees with Government/Contractor Relations Training.

5(e): Developed and performed business management strategy for Research Laboratory service performance-based requirements: The Offeror shall demonstrate experience developing and performing business management strategy for research laboratory service performance-based requirements by determining the number and mix of FTEs to meet a government’s contract requirement without government determining the number and mix of FTEs.

5(f): Developed and performed business management strategy for IT, Educational, Transcription, or

Audiovisual service performance-based requirements: The Offeror shall demonstrate experience developing and performing business management strategy for IT service performance-based requirements by determining the number and mix of FTEs to meet a government’s contract requirement without government determining the number and mix of FTEs.