DRAFT_Evaluation_Method_and_Criteria.pdf

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP)

EVALUATION METHOD AND CRITERIA

BUSINESS, ENGINEERING & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE (BETA)

September 2015

1.0 Basis for Contract Award: The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an assessment of Technical/Technical Risk, Past Performance, and Cost/Price. A contract may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by the RFP) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and sub factors to represent the best value to the Government. The Government seeks to award to the offeror who gives the Air Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet, or exceed, the requirements. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the technical and/or overall business approach and/or past performance of the higher price offeror outweighs the cost difference. The SSA will base the source selection decision on an assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation (described below). While the Government source selection evaluation team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

1.1 This contract is a competitive full and open procurement. The Government intends to award one (1) contract for the SAF/US(M) Business Engineering and Technical Assistance, however, the Government reserves the right to make no award at all. This acquisition will result in a Firm Fixed Price contract, with cost reimbursable line items for travel and Other Direct Costs (ODCs).

1.1.1 The Government will review the proposals for responsiveness. If a proposal is non-responsive then it will not be evaluated.

1.1.2 All proposals will be evaluated under the Technical Factor. If a proposal is rated Yellow/Marginal or Red/Unacceptable, the proposal will not be further evaluated and is not eligible for award.

1.1.3 The proposals that are rated higher than Yellow/Marginal or Red/Unacceptable will be evaluated for Past Performance.

1.1.4 The proposals will be evaluated under the Price Factor for reasonableness, fairness, balance, and

IAW 52.222-46.

1.1.5 Award will be a best value tradeoff.

1.2 The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal: Award will be made to the offeror proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon an assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below.

Factor 1: Technical

Subfactor 1: Technical and Management Approach

Subfactor 2: Staffing Plan

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Price

1.3 Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors. The relative importance of each factor and subfactor is as follows: Factor 1 (Technical) and Factor 2 (Past Performance) are equally important but when combined are significantly more than Factor 3 Cost/Price). Within the Technical Factor, the subfactors are equal in importance.

1.4 The Government intends to award without discussions. However, if during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions a competitive range comprised of all of the most highly rated proposals will be established. Offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. If the offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the Final Proposal Revision are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

1.5 Factor 1 – Technical

The Government will review all proposals to determine the degree to which the proposal meets or does not meet the requirements of the RFP through an assessment of the risk in conjunction with strengths and deficiencies of the proposal, and assign an overall technical/risk rating to each offer, as defined in Table 1. In the written technical proposal, the contractor shall identify and describe the methodology and analytical techniques used to fulfill the overall objectives and requirements that are described in this solicitation. The contractor’s technical approach shall clearly demonstrate an understanding of the requirements and include an innovative and efficient approach in satisfying the overall objectives of this requirement. Information that clearly describes the contractor’s approach to the following factors must be included in the Technical Volume and will be rated, as defined in Table 1.

TABLE 1 – TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

Blue Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Purple Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is unawardable.

1.5.1 Subfactor 1 – Technical and Management Approach

This sub-factor pertains to the soundness and flexibility of the proposed Technical and Management Approach. In the technical submission, the offeror shall identify and describe the methodology and analytical techniques to be used to fulfill the overall objectives and requirements that are described in) Task Order 0001 Performance Work Statement (PWS). The offeror should submit its Approach for accomplishing the support services, objectives, and tasks. The offeror’s Technical and Management Approach shall clearly demonstrate an understanding of the requirements and include innovative and efficient Approach for satisfying the overall objectives of the Secretary of the Air Force Office of Business Transformation (SAF/US(M)). Information that clearly describes the contractor’s Approach to the following factors must be included in the Technical Volume. The offeror should address the following for this sub-factor:

1. The offeror’s technical approach for demonstrating its ability to accomplish the support services, objectives and tasks. The offeror shall clearly demonstrate their understanding of the work to be performed and identify the technical solution for each task including the Approach, methodology, and analytical techniques to perform the requirements outlined in the RFP inclusive of all tasks.

2. The offeror’s plan that demonstrates the ability to produce and deliver all reports and output products required by this RFP in the timely and efficient manner. The offeror shall map its offer to the RFP and include any applicable milestones required by Task Order 0001 PWS.

3. The offeror’s approach for preparing, reviewing and/or developing strategic planning and performance reporting methods which are applicable to a global, diverse enterprise.

4. The offeror’s knowledge and demonstrated use of program management methods, especially in the area of sequenced information technology capability delivery.

5. The offeror’s approach to architect support in the development and assessment of performance reference models, business reference models, and use and maintenance of enterprise architectures to facilitate key transformation initiatives.

6. The offeror’s approach to vocabulary support in development of constructing taxonomies, ontologies, eXtensible Markup Language (XML) schemas, Web Ontology Language (OWL)-formed ontologies, data dictionaries, synonym sets, Unified Modeling Language (UML) schemas, and other forms of vocabulary artifact and assist in overseeing service development activities.

1.5.2 Subfactor 2 – Staffing Plan including Qualifications Matrix

The offeror shall describe the labor categories it proposes to provide the Government for the performance of the requirements of the PWS. Additionally, the offeror shall state the proposed qualifications for each labor category proposed. In support of the offeror’s ability to recruit and retain an adequate number of qualified personnel to perform upon award of a task order, the contractor shall provide a pool of candidates meeting the qualifications proposed. This information shall be included in the following staffing matrix. This sub-factor will also be evaluated in regard to the offeror ensuring that it employs personnel including the Program Manager with qualifications commensurate with the requirements of the contract.

For each labor category proposed, the offeror shall identify the specific task and sub-task to be performed and how each would be supervised. The offeror shall provide the labor category descriptions (i.e. experience, capabilities, responsibilities, etc.) for each proposed labor category using the following table. The offeror shall note that all proposed personnel must meet the requirements of the PWS including security clearance requirements. For each task identified in the RFP, the offerors shall propose staffing/labor categories and hours for each task. Additionally, address any teaming arrangements planned for performance of this contract and the responsibilities of each contractor and subcontractor.

Staffing Matrix

Task/sub-task identified in Task Order 0001 PWS

Proposed labor category

Proposed labor category qualifications

Proposed number of FTEs/hours

1.6 Factor 2 – Past Performance

The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The Past Performance factor will receive one of the performance confidence assessment ratings in Table 2 below.

TABLE 2 – PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

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 a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

LIMITED

CONFIDENCE

Based on the offeror’s recent/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/relevant performance record, the Government has a no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

UNKNOWN No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s

CONFIDENCE

(NEUTRAL)

performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

1.6.1 Offerors’ Past Performance information, Volume I, shall be provided in a format that facilitates an assessment according to the past performance evaluation criteria set forth in this solicitation. Specific guidelines and requirements about volume content and format are provided in this section. In Volume I, the offeror shall provide information for a maximum of five (5) different projects for which it served as the prime contractor, a subcontractor, a teaming partner, or a joint venture partner that are recent, as defined in this section, and relevant to the requirements described in the RFP.

1.6.2 Recency Assessment

An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must have at least six months of continuous active contract performance within the past three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

1.6.3 Relevancy Assessment

Relevancy is defined as the provision of services that are same or similar in complexity, scope, type, level of effort and schedule of the requirements of this RFP. The quality and depth of the offeror’s past performance with the transformation/improvement of processes for logistic and supply chains, human resource management, and financial management within a global-scale organization will be considered.

Past performance of Strategic Planning and Performance Measurement, Process Improvement, Project Management Support, Air Force Review Boards Business Processes and Organization Streamlining, Programming and Budgeting Execution System Streamlining, Financial Auditability Readiness, Data Governance and Community of Interest Support, General Management Support, and Business Process Re-engineering (BPR) Certification Support would be considered similar. Past performance that includes a combination of similar tasks will be considered more relevant. Past performance with projects performed for Department of Defense will also be considered more relevant. Offerors shall explain how the projects referenced are relevant to the proposed effort.

Table 3 - Past Performance Relevancy Ratings Rating Definition

VERY

RELEVANT

Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

RELEVANT Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

SOMEWHAT

RELEVANT

Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

NOT RELEVANT Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts (how well the contractor performed on the contracts). For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed for the Technical subfactors and Cost/Price Factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). The quality assessment consists of an evaluation of all past performance information available, regardless of its source.

The following information will be included as part of the summary for each project:

Name of the customer or contracting organization.

Contract type and value.

Designation as prime or subcontractor Period of performance Customer point of contact or reference having knowledge of contract performance (name, title, telephone number and e-mail address) Description of work performed, including a statement of the similarities of the work and the proportion of the work performed to that of the services described in this RFQ.

Completion date List of significant subcontractors

The offeror is required to clearly demonstrate management actions employed in overcoming problems and the effects of those actions in terms of improvements achieved or problems rectified.

In addition to the summaries, any performance evaluations (CPARs for example) may be used by the Government for evaluation.

An offeror without a record of relevant past performance, or for whom information on past performance is not available, will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the past performance evaluation criterion but will be evaluated as neutral for that factor.

Offerors shall have Past Performance Questionnaires completed for each of the contracts referenced.

The Past Performance Questionnaire is to be sent directly to the Contracting Office by the Company/Agency completing the questionnaire. The Past Performance Questionnaires are due by the closing time/date of the RFP. Offerors are responsible for ensuring the questionnaires are completed by their references and are submitted to the Contracting Office.

1.6.4 The quality assessment will include consideration of the extent to which the offeror’s evaluated past performance demonstrates compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns.

The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated.

1.6.5 Assigning Ratings. As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive a performance confidence assessment rating using the definitions at Table 2. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the Technical subfactors and cost/price factor, the resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance.

1.6. 6 A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than an "Unknown Confidence" rating. Likewise, a more relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance.

1.7 Factor 3 – Price

The offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated on distribution of labor hours across all labor categories proposed. Price analysis shall be performed so that a fair and reasonable price determination can be made by the Government.

1.7.1 The Price Proposal shall contain a completed, CLIN Structure Price Sheet. The prices proposed in the CLIN Structure Price Sheet will be used to determine the offeror’s total evaluated price. Price will not be assigned an adjectival rating, but will be evaluated. The government will perform price analysis to determine fair and reasonable pricing for all labor CLINs.

Offerors shall propose required labor categories along with hourly rates for the labor portion. Proposals will require proposed staffing mix/categories and FTEs/hours for those tasks.

1.7.2 The Offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated, using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404, in order to ensure it is fair and reasonable.

1.7.3 The Government will evaluate the affordability of each offeror’s Cost/Price proposal by comparing the total proposed price to the budgetary information available to the Government.

1.7.4 The offeror shall provide with their proposal the Executive/Professional Benefit Package that outlines the benefits provided their employees or consultants.

1.7.5 Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees. Since the contract amount is expected to exceed $650,000 and services are to be provided which will require meaningful numbers of professional employees, the Offeror’s pricing will be evaluated in accordance with: 52.222-46 – (Feb 1993) Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees (Feb 1993).

(a) Re-competition of service contracts may in some cases result in lowering the compensation (salaries and fringe benefits) paid or furnished professional employees. This lowering can be detrimental in obtaining the quality of professional services needed for adequate contract performance. It is therefore in the Government’s best interest that professional employees, as defined in 29 CFR 541, be properly and fairly compensated. As part of their proposals, offerors will submit a total compensation plan setting forth salaries and fringe benefits proposed for the professional employees who will work under the contract. The Government will evaluate the plan to assure that it reflects a sound management approach and understanding of the contract requirements. This evaluation will include an assessment of the offeror’s ability to provide uninterrupted high-quality work. The professional compensation proposed will be considered in terms of its impact upon recruiting and retention, its realism, and its consistency with a total plan for compensation. Supporting information will include data, such as recognized national and regional compensation surveys and studies of professional, public and private organizations, used in establishing the total compensation structure.

(b) The compensation levels proposed should reflect a clear understanding of work to be performed and should indicate the capability of the proposed compensation structure to obtain and keep suitably qualified personnel to meet mission objectives. The salary rates or ranges must take into account differences in skills, the complexity of various disciplines, and professional job difficulty. Additionally, proposals envisioning compensation levels lower than those of predecessor contractors for the same work will be evaluated on the basis of maintaining program continuity, uninterrupted high-quality work, and availability of required competent professional service employees. Offeror’s are cautioned that lowered compensation for essentially the same professional work may indicate lack of sound management judgment and lack of understanding of the requirement.

(c) The Government is concerned with the quality and stability of the work force to be employed on this contract. Professional compensation that is unrealistically low or not in reasonable relationship to the various job categories, since it may impair the Contractor’s ability to attract and retain competent professional service employees, may be viewed as evidence of failure to comprehend the complexity of the contract requirements.

(d) Failure to comply with these provisions may constitute sufficient cause to justify rejection of a proposal.

(End of Provision)

1.8 Award

The Source Selection Authority (SSA) shall select the source whose proposal offers the best value to the Government in accordance with the established criteria in this Evaluation Criteria. Trade-offs may be utilized to award to the best-value source based on a comparative assessment of proposals in accordance with the established criteria and with consideration of the recommendations and minority opinions presented to the SSA.