Attachment 6 Basis for Award (Amended).pdf

BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

This is a competitive Performance Price Tradeoff (PPT) best value source selection conducted in accordance with

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15 and Air Force FAR Supplement (AFFARS) Mandatory Procedure (MP)

5315.3 in which competing offerors’ combined past performance information will be approximately equal to price. All technically acceptable offers will be treated equally except for their prices and performance records. Any proposal with an unacceptable Technical rating will not receive further evaluation. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined unacceptable. The Government reserves the right to award a contract to other than the offeror with the lowest Total Evaluated Price (TEP) if the difference in the Past Performance Confidence Rating of another offeror justifies the higher price premium. In that event, the Source Selection Authority will make an integrated assessment best value award decision using the TEP and the Past Performance Confidence Rating. The evaluation process will include the following:

PART I - TECHNICAL FACTOR:

The Government will evaluate technical proposals on a pass/fail basis and assign an Acceptable or Unacceptable rating as described in Table 1 below for Subfactors 2 and 3. Subfactor 1’s ratings are described in Table 2. A rating of unacceptable in one or more technical subfactors will constitute an overall rating of Unacceptable for the technical evaluation. The offeror’s proposal shall, at a minimum, address each of the subfactors outlined below as they apply to the Statement of Requirement (SOR), Attachment 1.

Table 1. Technical Acceptability Ratings, Defined

Rating Definition

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

The proposals will be evaluated against the following subfactor(s):

Subfactor 1: Small Business Participation Plan

This subfactor will be met when the offeror’s small business participation plan contain all of the elements required by FAR 19.704(a), and the percentages listed below are met. Of the total amount the offeror plans to subcontract for this contract, minimum percentages shall be as follows:

21% to small business

5 % to Small Disadvantaged Business

5 % to Women-Owned Small Business

3 % to HUBZone Small Business

3 % to Serviced Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business

This factor will be evaluated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis as indicated below in Table 2.

Table 2. Small Business Participation Plan Acceptability, Defined

Rating Definition Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

NOTE: Applicable only to the apparent successful offeror: If a subcontracting plan acceptable to the Contracting

Officer is not negotiated within the time limits prescribed by the contracting activity and such failure arises out of cause within the control and with the fault or negligence of the offeror, the offeror shall be ineligible for an award. The

Contracting Officer shall notify the offeror in writing of the reasons for determining a subcontracting plan unacceptable early enough in the negotiation process to allow the offeror to modify the plan within the time limits prescribed.

Subfactor 2: Databases

This subfactor is met when the offeror successfully demonstrates its ability to clearly describe in sufficient detail databases, meeting the minimum requirements below. Database descriptions shall clearly delineate the coverage of the various databases.

Exhibit A – All Databases Menu: Offeror’s detailed source listing with database titles and descriptions will be evaluated to ensure the minimum requirements of SOR Paragraph 2.1.1. are met. Exhibit A will also be evaluated to ensure that in those areas where dates and specific materials are not specified, a list of materials with coverage dates is provided. Database titles and descriptions shall be listed in Exhibit A.

Exhibit B - Docket Databases: Offeror’s detailed source listing describing the docket databases will be evaluated to ensure the research capabilities of docket databases and their associated features meet the requirements of the SOR paragraph 2.1.2. Databases and description of functionality shall be listed in Exhibit B.

Exhibit C - Fully Accredited ABA Law School Package: Offeror’s detailed source listing describing the additional databases and features will be evaluated to ensure that it lists databases currently made available to other ABA-accredited law schools that are not included in the "All Databases Menu" in accordance with the SOR Paragraph

2.1.2. Databases and features shall be listed in Exhibit C.

Exhibit D - United Kingdom Databases: Offeror’s detailed source listing describing the databases will be evaluated to ensure the requirements in the SOR paragraph 2.1.4. are met. Databases shall be listed in Exhibit D.

Exhibit E - Medical Malpractice Databases: Offeror’s detailed source listing describing the databases will be evaluated to ensure the requirements in the SOR Paragraph 2.1.5. are met. Databases and features shall be listed in

Exhibit E.

Exhibit F - Insurance and Claims Databases: Offeror’s detailed source listing describing the databases will be evaluated to ensure the requirements in the SOR Paragraph 2.1.6. are met. Databases and features shall be listed in

Exhibit F.

Exhibit G - Transaction Priced Databases: Offeror’s detailed source listing describing the databases with standard or discounted search rates, per search, for each database will be evaluated to ensure the requirements in the SOR

Paragraph 2.1.7. are met. Databases shall be listed in Exhibit G.

Exhibit H - Citators: Offeror’s detailed description of how the citators it provides will be evaluated to ensure the requirements of the SOR Paragraph 2.3.3.4. are met. Offeror’s description shall also be evaluated to ensure the following are included:

a. Detailed source list of databases other than Federal Court opinion databases for which BOTH a case history citator and a general citator are available.

b. Detailed source list of databases other than Federal Court opinion databases for which ONLY a case history citator is available.

c. Detailed source list of databases other than Federal Court opinion databases for which ONLY a general citator is available.

d. Describe the currentness of citators.

Subfactor 3: Access Method Plan

This subfactor is met when the offeror’s detailed access method plan clearly outline how the requirements described in

SOR paragraphs 2.3.2.2 and 2.3.2.3 will be met. At a minimum, the Access Method Plan shall address the following:

1. Identify how the requirements for Access through the FLITE Web Server for Air Force Legal, SAF/GC, and

Non AF will be met as required by the Attachment 1, SOR paragraph 2.3.2.2.

2. Identify how the requirements for Access through JAGCNet for Army Legal will be met as required by the

Attachment 1, SOR paragraph 2.3.2.3.

PART II - PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR:

The Government will evaluate recent and relevant performance information based on (i) the references provided by the offeror, and (ii) any past performance information obtained from survey/questionnaires and (iii) any data independently obtained by the Government (e.g., the Government’s Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System

(FAPIIS) and the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS)). If a reference identified by the offeror in accordance with Section L, does not submit a survey/questionnaire, the Government will follow up with the reference

POC, but it is not responsible for the failure of a reference POC to provide a survey/questionnaire.

The past performance evaluation will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel, or subcontractors that are proposed to perform major or critical aspects of the requirement (i.e., 10% or more of the work) when such information is relevant to this acquisition.

A. Recent past performance information includes contracts performed and/or being performed for any customer within the last three (3) years from the issuance date of the solicitation, to include at least twelve (12) months of documented performance during the three (3) year period.

B. Relevant contracts performance effort involved similar scope, magnitude of effort, and complexities to that required by this solicitation. The Government will assess relevancy for each contract and assign a rating as described in Table 3 below:

Table 3. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Rating Rating Definition

Very Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this Solicitation requires. To qualify, the past/present effort shall:

The effort involves providing Electronic Legal Research Systems > $5 million over the life of the contract.

Performance shall include the following: Access to at least 1,000 different legal databases and training to customers worldwide.

Performance shall be done as the prime contractor, or, if a member of a joint venture, The Offeror shall have contributed at least 50% of the effort.

Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved a similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this Solicitation requires. To qualify, the performance may fail to meet all of the requirements for “Very Relevant” but meets all of the following:

The effort involves providing Electronic Legal Research Systems > $3 million over the life of the contract.

Performance shall include the following: Access to at least 1,000 different legal databases and training to customers worldwide.

Performance shall be done as the prime contractor, or, if a member of a joint

Somewhat

Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this Solicitation requires. To qualify, the performance fails to meet all of the requirements for “Very Relevant” or “Relevant” performance but meets all of the following:

The effort involves providing Electronic Legal Research Systems > $2 million over the life of the contract.

Performance shall include the following: Access to at least 1,000 different legal databases and training to customers worldwide.

Performance shall be done as the prime contractor, or, if a member of a joint

Not Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude and of effort and complexities this Solicitation requires. To qualify, all performance fails to meet one of the three relevancy ratings: “Very Relevant”, “Relevant” or “Somewhat Relevant”.

C. Sources. The Government will seek relevant performance information from the offeror in the form of Past

Performance Questionnaires that are forwarded by the offeror to its selected sources; and data independently obtained from other Government and commercial sources. Performance information may also be obtained from the references for each past/present effort submitted and/or from other sources. The past performance evaluation will take into account information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel, and/or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement, when such information is relevant to the instant acquisition.

The past performance evaluation may also consider the past performance of affiliated companies or operating divisions within the parent company, or joint ventures of the parent company, when:

1. The performance of these past efforts is relevant to the proposed effort; and

2. When the proposal clearly demonstrates the resources (e.g. financial resources, overall oversight and management or other resources) of the parent or affiliated division will meaningfully affect the performance of the proposed effort.

D. Performance Evaluation. In addition to evaluating the extent to which the offeror’s past performance meets the

SOR and technical requirements of previous efforts, the assessment will consider things such as: the offeror’s history of adhering to schedules, the administrative aspects of performance, reasonable and cooperative behavior, and commitment to customer satisfaction.

When a relevant and recent performance record indicates performance problems, the Government will consider the number and severity of the problems and the suitability and effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised). The Government may review more recent projects or performance evaluations to review the corrective actions and evaluate their effectiveness.

E. Performance Confidence Assessment. The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to assess the degree of confidence the Government has in the offeror’s ability to meet the solicitation requirements based on the offeror’s demonstrated record of performance. The Government will combine the recency, relevancy and performance evaluations of all of the efforts considered for the offeror to assign a Performance Confidence

Assessment of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Neutral Confidence, Limited Confidence or No

Confidence as described below in Table 4.

Table 4. Past Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings

Rating Description

Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has an expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can reasonably be assigned. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent and relevant performance record, the

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

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent and relevant performance record, the

Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

PART III - PRICE EVALUATION FACTOR:

The Government will rank all offers by price, including all option prices. The price evaluation will document the fairness and reasonableness of the total evaluated price (TEP). Separately priced line items shall be analyzed to determine if the prices are unbalanced.

A. Total Evaluated Price: The offeror’s TEP will be determined as the sum of all line items prices (except CLINs

X006, X008, and X012). An offeror's proposed prices will be determined by multiplying the quantities identified in the pricing schedule by the unit price for each item to confirm the extended amount for each. CLINs X006, X008, and X012 are NTE CLINs and will not be evaluated in the Total Evaluated Price (TEP).

B. Evaluating the Option CLINs does not obligate the Government to exercise the Options.

C. In addition, proposed unit prices may be evaluated for unbalanced pricing IAW FAR 15.404-1(g). Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one or more contract line items or sub-line item(s) appears to be significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. An offeror’s proposal may be rejected, if the Contracting Officer determines the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

D. If the proposal analysis techniques listed above are insufficient to make a determination of price reasonableness or, if the Contracting Officer determines that adequate price competition no longer exists, the

Contracting Officer may request submission of certified cost or pricing data and may use other proposal analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404, to the extent necessary, in order to make a determination of price reasonableness.

PART IV - PERFORMANCE PRICE TRADE-OFF:

After the initial evaluation of each offeror’s technical proposal, the Government will rank all technically acceptable offerors by price from the lowest TEP to the highest TEP. The government will then proceed to conduct the past performance evaluation for all technically acceptable offerors.

If the offeror with the lowest-priced, Technically Acceptable offer has a “Substantial Confidence” performance confidence assessment rating, that offeror will be determined to represent the best value to the Government.

If the lowest-priced, technically acceptable offeror does not have a “Substantial Confidence” performance confidence assessment rating, the Source Selection Authority (SSA) will make an integrated assessment, best value award decision which will include all technically acceptable offers.

The Government intends to award a single contract without discussions with respective offerors; however, the

Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest.