FA5613-13-R-0007_Sect_M.docx

FA5613-13-R-0007

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

M-1 SOLICITATION PROVISION INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

M-2 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

The Government will use Lowest Priced Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection technique to conduct an unrestricted competition. Although the Government intends to award a minimum of two (2) with a target of four (4) indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity (IDIQ) advisory and assistance services (A&AS) contracts, it reserves the right to award more or no contracts if the Source Selection Authority (SSA) determines it is in the Government’s best interest based on consideration of one or more of the following items: expected volume of work over the ordering period of the contracts, the need to sustain adequate competition and the availability of best value proposals following completion of the evaluation of the proposals received. This competitive best value source selection will evaluate offerors’ technical approach and past performance equally and award to the lowest priced technically acceptable offeror(s). The offeror must receive a rating of “acceptable” on all factors and subfactors in order to be eligible for award. By submission of its offer, the offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined technically unacceptable. The evaluation process shall proceed as follows: proposals will be ranked by price from low to high, the evaluation team will perform concurrent evaluation of the offeror’s proposal technical volume and past performance volume, starting with the lowest priced proposal. The SSA intends to select a minimum of two (2) with a target of four (4) lowest priced offerors that received an acceptable rating on all evaluation factors and subfactors.

A. TECHNICAL ACCEPTABILITY

Proposals are evaluated for acceptability but not ranked using the non-price factors/subfactors. Proposals shall be evaluated against the following technical subfactors: transition plan, management plan and sample TO. All subfactors are of equal importance.

In accordance with DoD Source Selection Procedures, as supplemented, all technical evaluation factors and subfactors will be evaluated on an “acceptable” or “unacceptable” basis. The table below outlines minimum requirements for each rating.

1. Subfactor 1 – Transition Plan

a. Standard. The transition plan shall successfully provide an orderly transfer of support responsibilities from the incumbent contractor(s) to the contractor(s) selected for this effort. The transition plan will become an attachment to the contract at award. A transition plan is acceptable when it successfully meets the following criteria:

i. Overall approach – The offeror successfully demonstrates the knowledge, skills and ability to effectively transition from one contract and contractor to another. The offeror successfully demonstrates a clear understanding of the transition responsibilities for the basic IDIQ and the sample TO. The offeror provides a realistic approach to transition at the end of the contract and sample TO period of performance (i.e., phase out).

ii. Transition period length and key activities – The offeror includes a detailed schedule of the transition period activities. The offeror adequately details the anticipated tasks and projected start and completion dates. The offeror proposes a transition plan that does not exceed 120 calendar days prior to the start date of 1 September 2014.

iii. Department of Defense Contractor Personnel Office (DOCPER) – The offeror successfully demonstrates a clear understanding of the DOCPER process for approval of the contract and individual employees. The offeror includes a detailed outline of the DOCPER process and successfully demonstrates a clear understanding of the timelines associated with contract and individual employee approval.

iv. Security Requirements – The offeror successfully demonstrates a clear understanding of the contract security requirements and provides a reasonable and realistic plan to be in compliance with the DD254 requirements at the start of contract performance. The offeror successfully demonstrates a clear understanding of the process to obtain the required employee security clearances.

2. Subfactor 2 – Management Plan

a. Standard. The management plan is intended to provide an approach to successfully manage and execute the contract at the acceptable performance level without introducing unacceptable risk. The management plan is acceptable when it successfully meets the following criteria:

i. Overall approach – The offeror successfully demonstrates a sound approach to management throughout the life of the contract. The offeror outlines the company’s program and contract management leadership and oversight philosophies, techniques, and reach back capabilities to ensure contract requirements are met. The offeror outlines a realistic approach to support contracting decisions that must be made on short notice. The offeror identifies key positions with contract responsibilities and decision making authority and associated minimum qualifications.

ii. Quality Control – The offeror outlines the process used for successfully planning, controlling, reporting and correcting quality issues that arise during performance of the contract. The plan successfully provides a process for transparent quality management which will result in limited customer oversight/intervention. The approach to quality control is in line with the requirements outlined in the PWS.

iii. Recruitment and Retention – The offeror provides a detailed description of the successful approach for recruiting, maintaining and retaining a professional and qualified workforce and addresses the overall performance records regarding recruitment and retention, ensuring low turnover rates, and any other areas applicable to the recruiting, hiring, retaining and rapidly replacing qualified employees with appropriate security clearances. The approach ensures the continuation of services during personnel absences due to sickness, leave, voluntary and involuntary termination from employment such that the impact to the Government is minimal.

iv. Subcontracting –The offeror provides a realistic approach to subcontracting for Analytical Support (AS) and Technical Expert (TE) positions. The offeror successfully demonstrates a clear understanding of the restriction placed on subcontracting AS positions and outlines an approach to ensure the limitation is not exceeded.

3. Subfactor 3 – Sample Task Order

a. Standard. The sample TO will be used to determine technical acceptability for awarding the basic IDIQ contract(s). The sample TO is contained in Section J, Attachment 3. The following evaluation criteria are applicable to the sample TO only. The scope of the sample TO is intended to be a representative sample of the work to be performed under the basic IDIQ contract. The sample TO is acceptable when it successfully meets the following criteria:

i. Technical Narrative – The offeror’s successfully demonstrates a sound management approach and technical solution to meet the sample TO requirements. The narrative provides detailed rationale for the labor category(ies) selected to meet the requirements, a detailed basis of estimate for the labor hours proposed in each labor category, and outlines the number of personnel performing each task and the number of hours worked by each individual, if applicable.

ii. Documentation – The offeror provides all the necessary documentation for DOCPER review of one employee to receive Technical Experts and/or Analytical Support status accreditation as it applies to the technical narrative and price proposal with associated labor categories. No document should contain Privacy Act Information.

iii. Proposal – The offeror provides a price proposal that includes the proposed labor categories, number of hours proposed per labor category, proposed price per labor category and any other direct costs (e.g., travel, training, etc.) for the base period and any option period(s). The labor category(ies) proposed are the same as Section J, Attachment 2, and the associated price per labor category is the same or less than the proposed price provided in Section J, Attachment 2.

B. PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROCEDURES

Each offeror‘s past performance volume shall be evaluated concurrently with the technical volume. The Government past performance evaluation team will conduct an in-depth review and evaluation of performance data obtained. The Government reserves the right to use both data provided by each offeror and data obtained from other sources. In evaluating past performance, information will be obtained through one or more of the following: 1) Past Performance Information Documents/Forms submitted; 2) Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS); 2) similar systems of other Government departments and agencies; 3) questionnaires tailored to the circumstances of this acquisition; 4) Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA); 5) interviews with program managers and COs; and 6) other sources known to the Government, to include commercial sources. The Government past performance evaluation team will consider the offeror’s past performance as an entire team including, teaming partners, joint venture partners, and/or major subcontractors , aggregately, rather than on individual contractor basis. The Government will consider the recency and the relevancy of the past performance.

Offerors are cautioned to submit past performance information as specified in Section L. Offeror’s may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their past performance proposal (e.g., the relevance of past performance information) or respond to adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports an unacceptable rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system. Communication conducted to resolve past performance issues will not constitute discussions and the CO reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.

In accordance with DoD Source Selection Procedures, as supplemented, past performance will be evaluated on an “acceptable” or “unacceptable” basis. The table below outlines minimum requirements for each rating.

1. Standard. Past performance assesses whether there is a reasonable expectation the offeror will successfully perform the contract requirements based on the offeror’s demonstrated present and past performance. Past performance is acceptable when it clearly meets the following criteria:

a. Recency – The offeror provided information on contract efforts that are ongoing or have been performed during the past three years from the date of the issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that does not meet this criteria will not be evaluated.

b. Relevancy – Only recent past performance will be evaluated for relevancy. A single assessment of the offeror’s past performance (which includes, if applicable, the extent of its teaming partner’s, joint venture partner’s, and/or major subcontractor’s involvement) will be made. Relevancy is defined as similar magnitude and complexity. Relevancy in regards to magnitude will be assessed based on overall contract value with a minimum of $1M annually or an aggregate total of $1M annually. Relevancy in regards to complexity includes performance similar to the A&AS III requirement in terms of, but is not limited to: 1) efforts involving advisory and assistance, management and professional support services, studies, analyses and evaluations; 2) efforts involving engineering and technical services; 3) efforts involving overall contract management, hired, trained and retained qualified personnel, and, 4) efforts involving the obtaining of appropriate security clearances for contractor personnel.

c. Relevance of an effort in which the offeror participated under a joint venture arrangement will be determined based on the work performed by the offeror. If a third party or customer cannot discern what work the offeror performed, this effort may not be considered relevant.

d. Offerors without a record of relevant past performance for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In accordance with DoD Source Selection Procedures, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.”

C. PRICE EVALUATION PROCEDURES

1. Price Analysis. This source selection is conducted with the expectation of adequate price competition and will rely on the techniques and procedure described under FAR 15.404-1(b) as the primary means of assessing proposal reasonableness. The offeror’s proposal will be reviewed for compliance with the requirements specified in Section L of the RFP.

2. Price Evaluation. Prior to evaluation of technical and past performance volumes, the Government shall rank all proposals by price, including all option prices. The offeror’s price proposal will be analyzed in accordance with paragraph M-2, C.1 above. An offeror’s proposed prices will be determined by multiplying the proposed labor rate associated with labor categories identified in Section J, Attachment 2 by the estimated quantities (hours) to confirm the extended amount for each labor category. The total evaluated price for the base period and each option period will consist of the total of the labor category’s extended price plus the total of travel (including G&A), training and ODCs. The hourly labor rates are “all-inclusive” fully burdened labor rates. The price evaluation will document the reasonableness of the proposed total program price, which includes the total price for the base period and all option periods. For evaluation purposes, the proposed labor rates for option years will be used for the six month extension of services. The price for the sample TO will not be included in the offeror’s overall evaluated price.

3. Reasonableness. Price reasonableness will be determined based on the offeror’s overall total evaluated price, including all option periods, as stated in the labor category pricing spreadsheet in Section J, Attachment 2. For a price to be reasonable, it shall represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay when consideration is given to prices in the market. The pricing proposal will be evaluated for completeness on each labor category, labor category’s extended price, total labor category amounts, travel including G&A, training and ODCs for the basic contract period and all option periods. The Government will evaluate proposed prices to determine whether prices are consistent with the labor category descriptions required for the work to be performed and reflect a clear understanding of the requirements.

4. Unbalanced. Offerors are cautioned against submitting a materially unbalanced offer. The Government will analyze offers to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to prices or separately priced line items within each year and between option years. Offers that are determined to be materially unbalanced may be rejected. An offer may be materially unbalanced if it is based on prices which are significantly less than the price for some contract line items (labor categories) and/or significantly overstated in relation to price for others as indicated by price analysis techniques.

M-3 BASIS FOR AWARDABLE TASK ORDER AWARD

The awardable TOs may be used to provide continuous contract support to existing requirements and/or fulfill guaranteed minimums. The Government may award none, one or both of the awardable TOs at time of IDIQ contract award to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the RFP will be most advantageous to the Government, technical and price factors considered. After selection of the IDIQ contract awardees, the awardable TOs will be awarded utilizing LPTA procedures using the ratings listed below. The awardable TOs are contained in Section J, Attachments 11 and 12.

The evaluation process for the awardable TOs shall proceed as follows: rank overall proposal acceptable offers by price from low to high then evaluate the offeror’s technical narrative and transition plan for the TO. If the SSA makes the determination to hold discussions for the basic IDIQ contract award, discussions regarding the awardable TO proposals may be included. The SSA will then select the lowest priced offeror that received an acceptable rating on the technical narrative and transition plan for each TO to be awarded. The Government will evaluate each awardable TO proposal on a technical narrative, transition plan and price proposal.

A. TECHNICAL NARRATIVE (SECTION J, ATTACHMENT 11 ONLY)

1. Standard. For the awardable TO listed in Section J, Attachment 11, the technical narrative is acceptable when it successfully meets the following criteria:

a. The technical narrative successfully demonstrates a thorough understanding and comprehensive knowledge of ISR systems security, ISR Coalition programs, developing Air Force (AF) Distributed Common Ground System (DCGS) compatible orientation programs to support introduction of military personnel to AF DCGS-like tactics, techniques and procedures (TTPs) for processing, exploitation, and dissemination of airborne ISR information, and conducting site surveys and inspection tasking of existing or new sites for deployment or bed-down of customer supported systems and examining other aspects of facility security. The narrative provides detailed rationale for the labor category(ies) selected to meet the requirements, a detailed basis of estimate for the labor hours proposed in each labor category, and outlines the number of personnel performing each task and the number of hours worked by each individual, if applicable.

B. TRANSITION PLAN (SECTION J, ATTACHMENT 11 ONLY)

1. Standard. The transition plan will become an attachment to the TO at award. A transition plan is acceptable when it successfully meets the following criteria:

a. The offeror successfully demonstrates the knowledge, skills and ability to effectively transition from the incumbent contractor. The offeror successfully demonstrates a clear understanding of the transition responsibilities for the TO. The offeror provides a realistic approach to transition at the end of the TO period of performance (i.e., phase out). The approach to the transition is reasonable and realistic. The offeror includes a detailed schedule of the transition period activities. The offeror adequately details the anticipated tasks and projected start and completion dates. The offeror proposes a transition plan that does not exceed 120 calendar days prior to the start of the TO period of performance.

C. PRICE (SECTION J, ATTACHMENT 11 ONLY)

1. Standard. The offeror provides a price proposal to include: an overall summary of costs, a breakdown of the price per labor category proposed for the base period and any option period(s), the number of labor hours proposed in each labor category, a total price for each labor category proposed for the base period and any option period(s), a breakdown of any indirect costs for the base period and any option period(s), a breakdown of any other direct costs (e.g., travel, training, etc.) for the base period and any option period(s). The labor category(ies) proposed are the same as Section J, Attachment 2, and the associated price per labor category is the same or less than the proposed price provided in Section J, Attachment 2.

a. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s price proposal in accordance with paragraph M-2.C.1 above. An offeror’s proposed prices will be determined by multiplying the hours associated with each labor category by the proposed price for the corresponding labor category. The total TO price will be evaluated and includes the total price for the base year and any option(s) (to include all direct and indirect costs). Price reasonableness will be determined in accordance with paragraph M-2.C.3, and offerors are cautioned against submitting a materially unbalanced offer in accordance with paragraph M-2.C.4. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

D. TECHNICAL NARRATIVE (SECTION J, ATTACHMENT 12 ONLY)

1. Standard. For the awardable TO listed in Section J, Attachment 12, the technical narrative is acceptable when it successfully meets the following criteria:

a. The technical narrative successfully demonstrates a thorough understanding and comprehensive knowledge of comprehensive Theatre Battle Management Core System (TBMCS) imagery servers, geospatial and other ISR-related ground systems, fixed and deployable communication systems, and equipment facilitating the receipt, dissemination, display and analysis of near-real-time (NRT) satellite broadcast data, developing Systems Application Architecture (SAA), and producing tailored imagery-based products in response to routine and ad hoc requests. The technical narrative successfully demonstrates a thorough understanding and comprehensive knowledge of providing mission/exploitation management support, to include developing airborne collection tracks and sensor optimization plans, supporting exploitation requirements assignment and prioritization and production criteria definition, and developing processes and structures for conducting exploitation management activities, as well as providing NRT analytical support, rapid correlations of multiple intelligence disciplines and continuously building/maintaining adversary situational awareness picture for the Area of Responsibility (AOR).

b. The narrative provides detailed rationale for the labor category(ies) selected to meet the requirements, a detailed basis of estimate for the labor hours proposed in each labor category, and outlines the number of personnel performing each task and the number of hours worked by each individual, if applicable.

E. TRANSITION PLAN (SECTION J, ATTACHMENT 12 ONLY)

1. Standard. The transition plan will become an attachment to the TO at award. A transition plan is acceptable when it successfully meets the following criteria:

a. The offeror successfully demonstrates the knowledge, skills and ability to effectively transition from the incumbent contractor. The offeror successfully demonstrates a clear understanding of the transition responsibilities for the TO. The offeror provides a realistic approach to transition at the end of the TO period of performance (i.e., phase out). The approach to the transition is reasonable and realistic. The offeror includes a detailed schedule of the transition period activities. The offeror adequately details the anticipated tasks and projected start and completion dates. The offeror proposes a transition plan that does not exceed 120 calendar days prior to the start of the TO period of performance.

F. PRICE (SECTION J, ATTACHMENT 12 ONLY)

1. Standard. The offeror provides a price proposal to include: an overall summary of costs, a breakdown of the price per labor category proposed for the base period and any option period(s), the number of labor hours proposed in each labor category, a total price for each labor category proposed for the base period and any option period(s), a breakdown of any indirect costs for the base period and any option period(s), a breakdown of any other direct costs (e.g., travel, training, etc.) for the base period and any option period(s). The labor category(ies) proposed are the same as Section J, Attachment 2, and the associated price per labor category is the same or less than the proposed price provided in Section J, Attachment 2.

2. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s price proposal in accordance with paragraph M-2.C.1 above. An offeror’s proposed prices will be determined by multiplying the hours associated with each labor category by the proposed price for the corresponding labor category. The total TO price will be evaluated and includes the total price for the base year and any option(s) (to include all direct and indirect costs). Price reasonableness will be determined in accordance with paragraph M-2.C.3, and offerors are cautioned against submitting a materially unbalanced offer in accordance with paragraph M-2.C.4. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

M-4 NON-GOVERNMENT PERSONNEL

Non-Government personnel will not be used in the evaluation of proposals on this acquisition; however, non-Government personnel provide administrative support to the Government. The company names and addresses providing non-Government administrative support are:

Council for Logistics Research, Inc.

201 12th Street South Crystal Gateway North, Suite 800 Arlington, VA 22202