Attachment 2 Eval Criteria_SDS_FA701425R0004_AAIE.pdf

FA701425R0004

SAF/AAIE Software Development Services

Request for Proposal (RFP) FAR Addendum 52.212-2

Evaluation Criteria

1.1 This contract is a small business competitive set-aside on General Services Administration (GSA) 8(a) STARS III IT Professional Services. This is a Technical/Price tradeoff source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 12 Commercial Items and Part 8 Required Sources of Supplies and Services as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS). These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) Acquistion.GOV, https://www.acquisition.gov/.

1.2 The Government intends to award a single Task Order (TO) and will select the proposal found to be most advantageous to the Government considering technical approach, past performance, and price. The evaluation criteria consists of three (3) factors: Factor I – Volume I: Technical Approach, Factor II – Volume II: Past Performance, and Factor III – Volume III:

Price. The tradeoff process for this acquisition will permit a tradeoff between the technical approach and price with the technical approach being significantly more important than price.

Proposals rated at least Good and Outstanding for the technical approach will then be evaluated for Price. The Contract will be awarded to the Offeror deemed responsible and providing the best value to the Government, with their technical approach and price considered. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced Offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the Ordering Contracting Officer (OCO) reasonably determines that performance of the technically acceptable higher priced Offeror outweighs the cost difference.

The OCO will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation (described below). While the Government Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) and the OCO will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

1.3 The Government intends to award one (1) Task Order (TO) for IT professional services in support of The Secretary of the Air Force, Administrative Assistant, Information Management Division (SAF/AAIE) Enterprise Business Solutions. However, the Government reserves the right to make no award at all. This acquisition will result in a Firm Fixed Price (FFP) TO. If a proposal is non-compliant with instructions outlined in the Instructions to Offerors, then it will not be further evaluated.

1.4 The evaluation will be completed in the following steps:

1.5 The Government will validate that each PRIME Offeror submitting a proposal for this has the correct Facility Clearance Level (FCL) as Secret. If the Offeror does not have the

FCL level based on the Contract Security Classification Specification DoD Form 254 (DD254) they will not proceed to Step 2: Technical Approach.

1.6 Factor I – Volume I: Technical Approach, that includes the following subfactors:

a. Commercial (Private and Public Sector)/Corporate Experience

b. Management/Staffing Plan (Acceptable/Unacceptable)

c. Transition-In Plan (Acceptable/Unacceptable)

Those proposals rated at “Good, or Outstanding” on the aggregated rating at the Factor I – Volume I: Technical Approach and “Acceptable” for the Management/Staffing Plan and Transition-In Plan level will then proceed to Step 2 and Step 3 Past Performance and Price Evaluation.

1.7 The Government will evaluate the remaining factor, Factor II – Volume II: Price.

2.0 Correction Potential of Proposals

2.1 The Government intends to award without exchanges.

2.1.1 If the Government requires additional information or clarification and interchanges are necessary, the Government will issue Interchange Notices (INs) as necessary to Offerors. INs will be sent electronically to Offerors to ensure complete understanding of any discrepancies.

Any necessary page changes to the Offeror’s proposals will be obtained prior to concluding interchanges. Throughout the interchange process, the Government will document any changes in ratings and total evaluated price. Offeror responses to INs at the conclusion of interchanges will become its final proposal and be considered in making the award decision. If the Offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time of interchanges, any changes or exceptions are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the Offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

3.0 Evaluation Factors

3.1 The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal. Award will be made to the Offeror(s) proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon an assessment of the evaluation factors described below.

Factor I -Volume I: Technical Approach Subfactor a. Commercial (Private and Public Sector)/Corporate Experience Subfactor b. Management/Staffing Plan (Acceptable/Unacceptable) Subfactor c Transition-In Plan (Acceptable/Unacceptable)

Factor II - Volume II: Past Performance (Includes Recent and Relevant Contracts and Quality of Past Performance)

Factor III - Volume III: Price (Includes the Professional Employee Compensation Plan (PECP))

3.1.1 Importance of Factors: Relative Importance of Factors. A final technical rating will include an aggregate of the Technical Approach factor and Subfactors. When combined, the Technical Approach (including all subfactors) is significantly more important than price.

3.1.2 The Government intends to award without discussions. However, if the Government determines discussions are necessary, it reserves the right to hold them. If discussions are necessary, the Government may establish a competitive range for efficiency purposes. If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, Offeror responses to Interchange Notices (INs) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision.

3.1.3 Factor I: Technical Approach Those proposals rated at Good, or Outstanding on the aggregated rating at the Factor I – Volume I: Technical Approach level will then proceed to the next Factor.

Table 1 TECHNICAL/RISK RATING

TECHNICAL/RISK RATING

Rating Description

OUTSTANDING

Proposal demonstrates meeting all three (3) task areas as identified in Section 2 of the PWS. The proposal demonstrates an exceptionali technical approach and substantialii commercial (private sector)/corporate capability to meet the task requirements found in Section 2 of the PWS. At least two (2) significant strengths and six (6) strengths are identified. The proposal has no weaknesses nor deficiencies. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

GOOD

Proposal demonstrates meeting all three (3) task areas as identified in Section 2 of the PWS. The proposal demonstrates a technical approach and commercial (private sector)/corporate capability to meet the task requirements found in Section 2 of the PWS. At least one (1) significant strength and four (4) strengths are identified. The proposal has no more than two (2) weaknesses and zero (0) deficiencies. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

FAIR

Proposal demonstrates meeting all two (2) out of the three (3) task areas identified in Section 2 of the PWS. The proposal demonstrates a technical approach and commercial (private sector)/corporate capability to meet the task requirements.

Four (4) strengths with no more than three (3) weaknesses and zero (0) deficiencies are identified. The risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

UNACCEPTABLE Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies.

Proposal is unawardable. The risk of successful performance is high.

3.1.4 The Government will review all proposals to determine the degree to which the technical approach meets or does not meet the requirements of the RFP through an assessment of the risk in conjunction with strengths, identified weaknesses and deficiencies of the proposal and assign an overall technical/risk rating to each offer, as defined in Table 1– Technical/Risk Rating. Below in Table 2 the Government has provided the definitions for this requirement of Strength, Significant Strength, Weakness, and Deficiency. These definitions are provided and will be identified by the Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) during the evaluation process and will be used for a final rating in Table 2 Technical/Risk Rating.

Table 2 – Definitions

Strength

An approach, strategy, demonstration, or a possible recommendation that exceeds the minimum areas of the evaluation criteria for the factor or subfactor.

Having commercial (private and public sector)/corporate experience supporting other agencies or organizations IAW the PWS task sections.

Demonstrating commercial or business practices that will benefit the SAF/AAIE organization.

Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Significant Strength Having commercial (private and public sector)/corporate experience supporting the Air Force, Department of Defense (DoD), and experience/knowledge of the various web applications, SharePoint, or other systems at the Pentagon and the Joint Base Andrews Shared Computing Environment.

Demonstrates a particular process, concept, or technical approach that the Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) deems would be a substantial asset to SAF/AAIE if implemented or adapted after contract award.

Weakness Is a flaw or approach that is not fully demonstrated or well documented for the proposal response.

Information is lacking or not fully identified for the evaluation panel to give a solid rating.

Risk of unsuccessful performance is low to medium.

Deficiency Is a significant flaw 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.

This can include not addressing a specific area or task of the PWS as well as a factor or subfactor.

Risk of unsuccessful performance is high and cannot be awarded.

3.2 Factor I: Technical Approach is met when the proposal demonstrates the following:

a. A clear understanding of the tasks in Section 2 of the PWS

b. The Offeror has the capabilities, expertise, experience, and knowledge in all matters pertaining to Air Force IT policies and procedures

The evaluation criteria for each rating cannot exceed the number of weaknesses that are identified for that particular rating (see rating table below).

Subfactor a: Commercial (private and public sector)/Corporate Experience This subfactor is met when the proposal demonstrates the following:

a. The Offeror has the commercial, corporate experiences, and capabilities to meet the tasks as identified in Section 2 of the PWS

b. The identified projects/contracts or task orders are similar in scope, complexity, and dollar value that aligns with this requirement

c. The Commercial (Private and Public Sector)/Corporate Experience demonstrates proven commercial or industry practices that have been effective in previous awards or task orders

Subfactor b: Management/Staffing Plan (Acceptable/Unacceptable)

This subfactor is acceptable when the Offeror’s proposal describes:

a. An Offeror’s Management/Staffing Plan outlines the proposed number of labor categories and proposed personnel that maps back to the specific tasks of the PWS in Section 2.

b. The Offeror’s plan demonstrates a sound management and staffing plan that will document/identify qualified personnel to support the tasks IAW the PWS, minimize impact on recruiting and retention, and incentivize employees to meet or exceed requirements. The Management/Staffing Plan will also clearly identify all personnel resources and skill sets to fulfill the full scope of the PWS requirements through a matrix table or chart that clearly identifies the proposed staff, qualifications and skillsets, as well as any certifications (if applicable) of the proposed personnel.

c. An Offeror’s Management/Staffing Plan addresses the oversight of the staff/personnel supporting this contract at the Offeror’s facility and the process for safeguarding all data and documents at the facility.

Subfactor c. Transition-In Plan:

This subfactor is acceptable when the Offeror’s proposal describes:

The Transition-In Plan will outline the approach to successfully execute, without mission degradation and successfully credentialing employees within a fourteen (14) calendar day transition period. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach and plan for a smooth transition in the turnover of work to/from the incumbent contractor. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s plan(s) that shall address the following:

The Transition - In Plan shall address the following items in the transition plan:

i. Key transition personnel

ii. Schedule of activities for onboarding

iii. Minimizing disruption to ongoing projects and mitigating any potential disruptions

iv. Staffing projects, including retention of existing staff

v. Communication with key stakeholders (e.g., incumbent/successor Offerors management and staff, COR and PCO)

vi. Project management reporting and tracking

A Transition-In Plan that solely relies on capturing incumbent personnel will be deemed and rated unacceptable. The Offeror should present a realistic transition plan to address areas of staffing, continuity of information, pending actions, and identify any risks that would be evident during a transition from one contractor to another.

3.3 Factor II: 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 assessments based on the recency, relevancy, and quality assessment ratings per the criteria below.

3.3.1 The Government will review up to five (5), minimum of two (2), total contracts for past performance submitted by the Offeror. Any submission in excess of the limit will not be considered and only the first five (5) contracts listed in Volume II will be evaluated.

3.3.2 The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements.

Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the requirement. The Government may consider past performance in the aggregate in addition to on an individual contract basis.

3.3.3 In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated.

3.3.4 Recency Assessment Recency assessment will apply to all contracts evaluated. An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. In order to be recent, the contract (or subcontract) must have been performed within the past five (5) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation and for a minimum of a six (6) month period. Past Performance outside this given timeframe will not be evaluated. If performance on the contract occurred within the last five (5) years prior to the RFP's proposal submission deadline, the past performance record will receive a rating of "Recent," otherwise, the past performance record will receive a rating of "Not Recent," and will not receive further evaluation.

Table 3

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.

3.3.5 Performance Quality Assessment

Each submission will receive a quality assessment rating based on Table 4. A quality assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine the quality of the performance for each of the references. Each submission will receiving an individual rating.

Table 4

Rating Description Acceptable During the contract period, the contractor’s performance is meeting

(or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeding (exceeded) many. Very few, if any, minor problems encountered.

Contractor provided immediate and effective correction action.

Unacceptable During the contract period, the contractor’s performance is failing (or failed) to meet contract requirements. Serious problems encountered and required corrective actions, were either ineffective or non-existent. Extensive customer oversight and involvement was (or is) required.

3.3.6 Performance Confidence Assessment

As a result of the recency, relevancy, and quality ratings in all three performance categories, offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the Technical and price factor, the resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance. Offerors without a record of recent/relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive an “Unknown Confidence” rating for the Past Performance factor.

More recent performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less recent effort. 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.

The performance confidence 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. The Government will use the following performance confidence ratings, shown below in Table 5, when assessing recent, relevant efforts.

Table 5

Performance Confidence Assessment

Rating Description

Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent, relevant, and quality ratings, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent, relevant, and quality ratings, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent, relevant, and quality ratings, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent, relevant, and quality ratings, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral)

No recent, relevant, or quality performance record is available, or the offeror's performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

3.6 Factor III – Volume III: Price

(1) The Offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated based on the total price proposed for the CLINs on Attachment 4, CLIN Structure Price Sheet. Evaluation of Option Periods and the pricing for FAR 52.217-8 shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options or the 52.217-8 six (6) month option.

(2) The cost/price proposal shall contain a completed copy of Attachment 4 CLIN Structure Price Sheet. The prices proposed in the price sheet will be used to determine the Offeror’s total evaluated price. The Government estimates travel on this task order as $25,000.00 for the base and all option years. These totals are pre-populated on the worksheet and should not be changed when pricing.

The /price proposals will be evaluated for award purposes based upon the total evaluated price (TEP), which includes the base period and all option periods. The price of the six-month extension will be included in the TEP. Price will be evaluated for fairness, reasonableness, balance, and completeness. For additional information, see FAR 31.102 Fixed-Price Contracts.

The Offeror shall provide the information required in FAR 52.222-46 – Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees with their proposal.

The Professional Employee Compensation Plan (PECP) will be evaluated IAW FAR 52.222-46 for realism. The Government reserves the right to eliminate a proposal from further evaluation due to unacceptable risk if the evaluated prices are unreasonable, unbalanced, and incomplete or if the PECP is unrealistic. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s and first-tier subcontractor’s PECPs for realism by assessing the compatibility of the proposed price with the proposal’s scope and effort in accordance with FAR 52.222-46. For the PECP to be realistic, it must reflect what it would cost the Offeror to perform the effort, if performed with reasonable economy and efficiency in the National Capital Region (NCR) (U.S. Postal Code 20330). The Government may utilize government civilian rates, similar contract labor rates, salary.com, other similar or relevant websites, or anything else it deems appropriate or beneficial in its evaluation of realism. For the PECP to be realistic, it must demonstrate the contractor’s ability to successfully recruit and retain qualified professional employees in the geographical areas where the work is being performed.

The Offeror must map the labor categories proposed to their awarded GSA (8a) STARS III labor categories. The Offeror must then designate the labor categories they deem professional.

Unbalanced Pricing. Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and could result in payment of unreasonably high prices. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one (1) or more contract line items is significantly over or understated. The Government shall analyze offers to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to separately priced line items or sub-line items. In accordance with FAR 52.212-2(b), the

Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Additionally, an offer that is determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

(3) Reasonableness concerns for which adjustments cannot be adequately quantified, or cost structures considered too low, too high, or unbalanced to support anticipated task order requirements with sufficiently qualified personnel may be determined to represent increased proposal risk.

4. SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as factors or subfactors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the Offeror being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale.

5. AWARD

The OCO 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 OCO.

i Exceptional meaning: Demonstrating an approach that is well articulated, strategic and the overall approach exceeded the expectations of the TEP.

ii Substantial meaning: Demonstrated commercial (private sector)/corporate capabilities exceeding six (6) years supporting federal or commercial agencies/organizations in the information technology (IT) field.

4. SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS