Attach_4-Sect_M.pdf

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M-I - SOLICITATION PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

1 SOURCE SELECTION

a. Basis for Contract Award This is a best value source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, 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) FAR Site, 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 Cost/Price.

Contract(s) may be awarded to the Offeror(s) 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 of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors 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 stated in the Performance Work Statement (PWS). 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 integrated 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 nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

b. Number of Contracts to be Awarded The Government intends to award three (3) to six (6) contract(s) for the Distributed Common Ground System (DCGS) effort. However, the Government reserves the right to make fewer, more, or no awards based on the quality and quantity of proposals.

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). GFP will not be provided at the basic contract level. Any GFP to be provided will be identified at the Task Order (TO) level.

d. Discussions.

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 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/

Final Proposal Revision are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the Offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

e. Task Order 0001 TO 0001 will be a mandatory attendance for all contract awardees to attend the DCGS Web Page Meeting within two weeks after date of contract award. The date and time will be disclosed upon award. All Offerors must submit the following statements on a signed company letterhead:

a. Offeror will attend the mandatory DCGS Web Page Meeting;

b. Offeror understands $3,000 will be the total price for this task (to include travel if any);

c. Task Order 0001 is NOT included in the basic contract proposal costs; and

d. The webpage must include, at a minimum, the following:

i. Project Management Plan

ii. Risk Management Plan

iii. Staffing Plan

iv. Company Organizational Chart

v. Area for assigned Task Orders

a. Staffing Plan (positions, assigned contractor/company [prime/sub])

b. Metrics (i.e. fill rate, lapse)

c. CDRLs per TO

The webpage must only be viewed by key members of the contractor, Contracting Officer, and the Contracting Officer Representative. It must be kept current. Only unclassified material can be placed on the website.

2 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

Subfactor 1 – Management Approach

Subfactor 2 – Staffing

Subfactor 3 – Technical Expertise/Capability

Subfactor 4 – Sample Task Order

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Cost/Price

(2) Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors. The relative importance of each factor and subfactor is as follows: Technical, Past Performance, and Cost/Price are listed in descending order of importance. Factor 1 (Technical) is most important, Factor 2 (Past Performance) is second most important, and Factor 3 (Cost/Price) is last in importance. Within the Technical Factor, the subfactors are in descending order of importance. Management Approach is the most important, followed by Staffing being the second most important;

Technical Expertise/Capability being the third most important, and the Sample Task Order is the last in importance.

In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), all evaluation factors other than Cost/Price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price.

b. Technical Factor The Technical evaluation provides for two distinct but related assessments: the Technical Rating and the Technical Risk Rating. These two ratings have equal impact for the rating of each Technical subfactor.

(1) Technical Rating. The technical rating provides an assessment of the quality of the Offeror’s solution for meeting the Government’s requirement. Each Technical subfactor will receive one of the color ratings described Table 1 – Technical Ratings, excerpted below. They focus on the strengths and deficiencies of the Offeror's proposal. The color rating depicts how well the Offeror’s proposal meets the Technical subfactor requirements. Subfactor ratings shall not be rolled up into an overall color rating for the Technical factor.

TABLE 1 - TECHNICAL RATINGS

Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal contains multiple strengths and no deficiencies.

Purple Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains at least one strength and no deficiencies.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal has no strengths or deficiencies.

Yellow Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet requirements, and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

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

In arriving at a best value decision, the Government reserves the right to give positive consideration, i.e., assign a strength, for performance in excess of threshold requirements, up to the objective requirements. The Government may give further positive consideration for performance in excess of the objective requirements.

(2) Technical Risk Rating. Assessment of Technical Risk, which is manifested by the identification of weakness(es), considers potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

The Technical subfactors will receive one of the Technical Risk ratings described in Table 2 – Technical Risk Ratings, excerpted below. The risk rating considers the risk associated with the technical approach in meeting the requirement. For any weakness identified, the evaluation shall address the Offeror's proposed mitigation and why that mitigation approach is or is not manageable.

1. Technical Subfactor 1 –Management Approach

The Government’s evaluation of this subfactor will focus on the Offeror’s approach and how well it meets the requirements of the Performance Work Statement (PWS), risk of performance, strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies. The proposed approach must be sound, feasible, and effective and clearly demonstrate evidence of the full capability the contractor and its team to support this requirement. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s management plan to meet all areas of the requirement to include

i. Teaming partners expected to perform at least 10% of this effort have been identified, to include the work they will be performing and the percentage of the effort

ii. Minimize management oversight

iii. Ability to perform independent and/or team-based work

iv. Ability to perform proactive work and staffing coordination

v. Manage multiple task orders at multiple locations,

vi. Manage subcontractors/teaming partners

vii. Resolve conflicts with the Government concerning manning, cost, and scheduling.

TABLE 2 – TECHNICAL RISK RATINGS

Rating Description

Low

Has 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

Can 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

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.

viii. Plan for an orderly transition of personnel and their capabilities to fill positions. Provide number of cleared personnel at the TS/SCI per labor category.

ix. Contractor’s facility clearance.

x. Ability to continuously recruit cleared personnel to meet the requirements.

xi. Detailed explanation of the process of hiring non-incumbents with the understanding that TS/SCI clearance will be needed.

2. Technical Subfactor 2 – Staffing well it meets the requirements of the Performance Work Statement (PWS), risk of performance, strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies. The proposed approach must be sound, feasible, and effective and clearly demonstrate evidence of the full capability the contractor and its team processes for staffing. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Human Resource / Staffing Plan to fulfill this requirement to include

i. Offeror’s in-place processes to recruit and retain all positions, but specifically Senior (SR) level intelligence professionals; qualified IT systems personnel; multiple levels of experience and qualified intelligence personnel; and personnel that have graduated from Government GEOINT or SIGINT initial skills course for filling AF DCGS Crew Positions

ii. Coordination abilities IAW PWS Section 6.0

iii. Fill gaps in personnel that exceed 14 calendar days

iv. Mitigation plan to ensure coverage during leave of absence and contractor personnel not passing AF DCGS Crew Position qualification test or IT certification requirements

3. Technical Subfactor 3 – Technical Expertise/Capability The Government’s evaluation of this subfactor will focus on the Offeror’s approach meets the requirements of the PWS, risk of performance, strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s outlined approach to meet all objectives of the PWS to include:

i. The operations, maintenance, and strategic planning capability

ii. Labor categories and skill sets required and how they will be utilized to accomplish the

PWS.

iii. Quality control your company will use to produce deliverables in accordance with the

CDRLs.

4. Technical Subfactor 4 - Sample Task Order well it meets the requirements of the Performance Work Statement (PWS), risk of performance, strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies. The proposed approach must be sound, feasible, and effective and clearly demonstrate evidence of the full capability the contractor and its team processes for staffing. Although this is a realistic sample of a task order that Offerors will respond to, this is only a sample TO and will NOT be awarded. The Government will review

i. The approach to meet the requirement, the basis of the estimates, and proposed estimated hours.

ii. The offeror’s proposed personnel and their skills, certifications, education and clearances needed for successful completion of the sample TO.

iii. Any risks (i.e. losing certification or clearance) and how the offeror overcame them.

iv. If an offeror elects to subcontract this effort, an analysis is required IAW FAR 15.404-3.

c. Past Performance Factor

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

(1) Ratings. The Past Performance factor will receive one of the performance confidence assessments in Table 3 – Performance Confidence Assessments, excerpted below.

(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 reviewing the Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ), Attachment L-2 and 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 paragraph 2a(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

TABLE 3- 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 no expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

UNKNOWN CONFIDENCE

(NEUTRAL)

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officer’s Representatives, 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. To be recent, the effort must have been performed during the past three years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails 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 products provided/services performed under those contracts relate to the Technical subfactors and Cost/Price factor, including their relative order of importance (reference paragraph 2a(2)). For each recent past performance citation 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). Areas of interest include PWS paragraph 3.1, Weapon Systems and Command, Control, Communications, Computers and Intelligence (C4I) Systems Information Technology Services; PWS paragraph Section 3.3, Intelligence Support; PWS paragraph Section 3.5, Staff Support; PWS paragraph Section 3.6, Studies, Reports, Analyses and Evaluations; and PWS paragraph Section 4.1, Program Management with emphasis on managing projects in multiple locations. Consideration will be given to criteria such as similarity, complexity, diversity of tasks, type of effort, scope, value, and performance period. 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 sheet, Attachment L-1 and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance. The Government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing recent, relevant contracts, Table 4:

TABLE 4- RELEVANCY

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.

(iii) Performance Quality Assessment

The Government will consider the performance quality of recent and relevant efforts (how well the Offeror performed on the contracts). For each recent past performance contract 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 in-depth evaluation of Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ), Attachment L-2 and all past performance information available, regardless of its source. 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 team 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.

(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 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 or relevant 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.

VOLUME IV – FACTOR 4 – COST/PRICE

a. Price/Cost Evaluation. The Offeror’s proposal shall demonstrate and clearly describe an effective and efficient cost approach for accomplishing the stated requirements in the PWS. The Offeror’s cost/price proposal will be evaluated, using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404, in order to determine if it is reasonable and realistic. The Government will Determine an evaluated cost based on the basic and option years. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced.

Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s). The method of calculating of the Offeror's evaluated cost will be as follows:

The total evaluated price will be calculated utilizing the labor rates established in the Cost Model, Attachment L-7. The base year evaluated price will be established by using the estimated hours as shown in Section L-6.6.1.2 multiplied by the Offeror’s labor rates incorporated in the Cost Model, Attachment L-7. The option year evaluated price will be established by using the estimated hours as shown in Section L-6.6.1.2 multiplied by the Offeror’s labor rates incorporated in the Cost Model, Attachment L-7. Notwithstanding the Government’s evaluation technique, the prime contractor is permitted to propose whatever labor mix it chooses on each task order. The contractor’s Firm Fixed-Price rates in the Cost Model, Attachment L-7 will be incorporated into the contract and will be the rates used to price subsequent task orders. The Government evaluation price methodology is for purposes of establishing an evaluated cost only.

b. Options. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. This amount will be the total evaluated price. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the options.

c. The following example illustrates how the total evaluated price will be calculated. All rates and prices used are hypothetical:

Base Year Option Yr 1 Option Yr 2 CLIN X001, Labor FFP Total 28,000,000.00$ 35,000,000.00$ 48,000,000.00$ CLIN X002, Surge T&M Total 10,000,000.00$ 15,000,000.00$ 20,000,000.00$ CLIN X003, Materials, Cost 300,000.00$ 309,000.00$ 318,270.00$ CLIN X004, Travel, Cost 550,000.00$ 566,500.00$ 583,495.00$ CLIN X0005, Data, NSP -$ -$ -$

CLIN 0006, TO 0001 3,000.00$ -$ -$

Yearly Total: 38,853,000.00$ 50,875,500.00$ 68,901,765.00$ Total Evaluated Price: $158,630,265.00

d. Sample Task Order Price The pricing information submitted for Section L, paragraph 6.6.4, Task Order Pricing, will be reviewed to ensure the Offeror rates do not exceed the rates proposed in DCGS Cost Model, Attachment L-7. The Task Order pricing will NOT be incorporated into the Total Evaluated Price (TEP).

e. Price Reasonableness and Realism. The Offeror’s cost/price proposal will be evaluated, using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404, in order to determine if it is reasonable and realistic. The Government will evaluate the realism of each Offerors’ proposed costs. This will include an evaluation of the extent to which proposed costs indicate a clear understanding of solicitation requirements, and reflect a sound approach to satisfying those requirements. The Cost/Price Realism Assessment (CPRA) will consider technical/management risks identified during the evaluation of the proposal and associated costs. Cost information supporting a cost judged to be unrealistically low and technical/management risk associated with the proposal will be quantified by the Government evaluators and included in the CPRA for each Offeror. When the Government evaluates an offer as unrealistically low compared to the anticipated costs of performance and the Offeror fails to explain these underestimated costs, the Government will consider the Offeror as having a lack of understanding of the technical requirements of the corresponding Mission Capability subfactor.