ATCH_11_Section_M.pdf

Attachment 11

FA702219RA007

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

M001 SOURCE SELECTION

a. Basis for Contract Award This is a competitive, best value trade-off source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15, Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Part 215, and the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS) Part 5315. These regulations are available electronically at http://farsite.hill.af.mil. The government will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of Technical, Technical Risk, Past Performance, and Price. The Contract will 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 Section L, RFP Attachment 10, of this solicitation) and is determined, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors to represent the best value to the government. The Source Selection Authority (SSA) will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation (described below). This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the SSA reasonably determines that the technical approach and/or past performance of the higher price offeror outweighs the price difference. 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.

b. Number of Contracts to be Awarded The government intends to award only one (1) contract for the NDES III effort.

c. Competitive Advantage from Use of GFP The government will eliminate any competitive advantage resulting from an offeror's proposed use of government-furnished property (GFP).

d. Discussions The offeror is reminded that the government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion. This reservation includes matters of omission, errors, additional or substitute pages of the initial proposal. If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the government to hold discussions, 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.

e. Correction Potential of Proposals The government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential" of any deficiency or uncertainty. The judgment of such "correction potential" is within the sole discretion of the government. If an aspect of an offeror's proposal does not meet the http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm government's requirements and is not considered correctable, the offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range.

M002 EVALUATION FACTORS

a. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

(1) 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 integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below.

Factor 1: Technical/Technical Risk

Subfactor 1: Program Management and Staffing Plan Subfactor 2: Technical Approach and Ability

Subfactor 3: Task Order 0001

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Cost/Price

(2) Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors. The government will evaluate all proposals received against Technical (Factor 1), Past Performance (Factor 2) and Cost/Price (Factor 3). The subfactors within Factor 1 are of equal importance. Factor 1 is more important than Factor 2 and when combined, are significantly more important than Factor 3.

b. Technical Factor (Factor 1)

Each offeror’s technical solution will be assessed and assigned ratings using Tables 2A and 2B, provided below. The technical rating evaluates the quality of the offeror’s technical solution for meeting the government’s requirement. The government will utilize the Technical Rating Method contained within Table 2A, which includes the evaluation findings; strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies of the offeror’s proposal when determining the Technical color rating. Each Technical subfactor will receive one of the color ratings and will not be rolled up into an overall color rating for the Technical factor.

Assessment of Technical Risk, which is manifested by the identification of weakness(es), significant weaknesses, and deficiencies of the offeror’s proposal, considers potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased government oversight, and/or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. The risk rating considers the risk associated with the technical approach in meeting the requirement. The Technical subfactors will receive one of the Technical Risk ratings described in Table 2B. An overall risk rating will not be assigned for the Technical Factor.

Subfactor 1: Program Management and Staffing Plan

1) This subfactor is met when the offeror’s proposal adequately demonstrates and explains the capability of the offeror’s organization to successfully perform the requirements stated in the PWS. Submittals should address, at a minimum, the following:

TABLE 2A - TECHNICAL RATING METHOD

Color Rating

Adjectival Rating

Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength.

Green Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is not awardable.

TABLE 2B – TECHNICAL RISK RATINGS

Rating Description

Low

Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close government monitoring.

Unacceptable

Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

a) Discussion of how the offeror intends to manage the overall effort and individual task order effort, to include subcontracting arrangements

b) Offeror’s ability to identify, classify and mitigate risk to performance

2) This subfactor is met when the offeror’s proposal adequately demonstrates and explains a staffing plan to provide and maintain the initial base of personnel qualified in the skills/background listed in the PWS by including resumes for all labor categories.

3) This subfactor is met when the offeror’s proposal adequately demonstrates a transition plan that clearly and fully describes how the offeror proposes to mobilize, train, observe, and otherwise prepare to become fully operational and assume complete contract responsibility to include:

a) Tasks, events, and milestones required for start-up activities

b) Required initial training, indoctrination, and orientation of all employees

c) A viable timeline to begin activities outlined in the PWS

Subfactor 2: Technical Approach and Ability

1) This subfactor is met when the offeror’s proposal adequately demonstrates and explains, through specific and detailed examples, prior experience, and evidence, the capability of the offeror to generate technical approaches and provide solutions to requirements in the PWS.

2) This subfactor is met when the offeror’s proposal adequately demonstrates and explains, through specific and detailed examples, prior experience, and evidence, the ability to provide technical expertise to meet Department of Defense Information Assurance requirements in accordance with Security Technical Implementation Guides (STIGs) (https://iase.disa.mil/).

Subfactor 3: Technical Response to Task Order 0001.

1) This subfactor is met when the offeror’s proposal adequately demonstrates and explains the offeror’s programmatic and technical approach to successfully accomplish the effort required of the Task Order 0001 PWS (RFP Attachment 4). Submittals should include, at a minimum, the following:

a) Staffing Plan

b) Technical proposal

c) Schedule

c. Past Performance Factor (Factor 2)

The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements.

(1) Ratings. The Past Performance factor submittal will receive one of the performance confidence assessments described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, dated 31 Mar 2016, Table 5 – Performance Confidence Assessments.

(2) Evaluation Process. 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 Technical subfactors and Cost/Price factor, taking into consideration their relative order of importance stated in Section M002, paragraph a. (2).

The government may consider past performance in the aggregate in addition to on an individual contract basis. In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the offeror’s Past Performance proposal volume and information obtained from other sources available to the government, to include, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers and Fee Determining Officials; the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources.

(i) Recency Assessment. An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. Recent contracts, for the purposes of this solicitation, are defined as those where work was performed, at some point, during the last three (3) years from RFP release date. Past performance information that fails to meet this condition will not be evaluated.

(ii) Relevancy Assessment. The government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the services performed under those contracts relate to the Technical subfactors and Cost/Price factor, including their relative order of importance stated in Section M002, paragraph a. (2). For each recent past performance record reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed for the Technical subfactors and Cost/Price Factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). Consideration will be given to each recent past performance citation to determine its relevance to the Technical subfactors and Cost/Price factor in terms of magnitude and complexity of the effort. A relevancy determination of the offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations, including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s). 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. The past performance information forms (PIFs) and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance. The government will use the http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/policy/policyvault/USA007183-10-DPAP.pdf following relevancy definitions when assessing recent, relevant contracts (DoD Source Selection Procedures, dated 31 Mar 2016, Table 4):

TABLE 4 - Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method

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) Assigning Ratings. As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating. 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 past 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 "Neutral Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor. The following table will be used for assignment of Past Performance factor rating:

TABLE 5- Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method

Adjectival 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.

Neutral Confidence No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence

More recent performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less recent or relevant effort. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the government than a "Neutral 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.

d. Cost/Price Factor (Factor 3)

(1) The Cost/Price proposal of each offeror will be evaluated in accordance with FAR 15.404.

Proposals determined to be unreasonable (in accordance with FAR 15.404 and FAR 31.201-3), or unbalanced (in accordance with FAR 15.404-1), may not be further considered for award. The techniques and procedures used to determine fairness and reasonableness are at the discretion of the Contracting Officer.

(2) Total proposal price will be the calculated sum of all proposed costs/prices (CLINs 0001 – 0004) as provided in Section B of the model contract as substantiated by Attachment 9. If any discrepancies exist between Section B of the model contract and Attachment 9, the model contract will be regarded as the official cost/price submittal of the offeror. Government-provided values for CLIN 0002 shall be used unaltered. Inconsistencies between the proposed Price Volume and Technical Volume, unbalanced pricing, or other pricing anomalies may be assessed as proposal risk under the Technical Factor. Proposed phase-in prices will not be considered in the comparative analysis of proposals; however, phase-in prices will be evaluated for reasonableness.

(3) The cost/price proposal for Technical Evaluation Subfactor 3, Task Order 0001, shall be evaluated separately to ensure it is fair and reasonable, pursuant to FAR 15.404. For additional information see FAR 31.201-3.

M003 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.

assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

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

M003 SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS