Section_M_2-8-19.pdf

CDM Analytical and Technical Services Section M

This is a best-value source selection conducted in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 1 15, “Contracting by Negotiation”, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement 2 (DFARS), and the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS). The Government will use a 3 Combination Subjective Trade-off/Technically Acceptable source selection process to make an integrated 4 assessment for a best-value award decision. In terms of the evaluation, the Technical factor is significantly more 5 important than Cost or Price. The Government seeks to award to the Offerors who give the Government the greatest 6 confidence that it will best meet, or exceed, the requirements. This may result in an award to a higher-rated, higher-7 priced Offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the Source Selection Authority 8 (SSA) reasonably determines that the benefit of the higher-priced, technically-superior Offeror outweighs the cost 9 difference. The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all 10 source selection criteria in this solicitation. While the Government source selection evaluation team and the SSA 11 will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; and therefore, 12 professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process. 13 The Government intends to award multiple base IDIQ contracts for the Air Force CDM’s Analytical and Technical 15 Services. Multiple Offerors will be selected to become participants in the task order competitions that will take 16 place under the base IDIQ contract. 17 M1.0 FACTORS and SUBFACTORS 19 The Government will evaluate proposals based upon the following Factors and Subfactors: 20 M1.1 Factor 1 – Technical Capability (Volume I), Evaluation Criteria Starts at Section M3.0: 22

Subfactor Rating Type Subfactor 1 - Sample TO 1 Covering Commercially Enabled Intelligence

Combined Technical/Risk rating

Subfactor 2 - Sample TO 2 Covering CDMA Research Environment

Combined Technical/Risk rating

Subfactor 3 – Demonstrated Capability Narrative Combined Technical/Risk rating Subfactor 4 – Scenario Response Covering Systems and Architectures

Acceptable/Unacceptable rating

Subfactor 5 – Small Business Participation Plan Acceptable/Unacceptable rating M1.2 Factor 2 – Cost/Price (Volume II), Evaluation Criteria Starts at Section M4.0: 25

M1.3 RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS 27

Trade-offs may be made between Task Orders and Cost/price, if the superior performance warrants the price 28 differential. Factor 1, Technical Capability is significantly more important than Factor 2, Cost/Price. 29 Trade-offs may be made between Factor 1, Subfactors 1, 2 and 3 (Subfactors 1, 2 and 3 are of equal importance), 31 and Factor 2 Cost/Price, if the superior approach warrants the price differential. The remaining Technical 32 Subfactors, 4 and 5, will be rated as “Acceptable/Unacceptable.” 33 If any Subfactors are rated as “Marginal” or “Unacceptable” the proposal will be deemed unawardable. Offerors 35 determined for all Technical Subfactors to be at least technically “Acceptable” and provide a fair and reasonable 36 cost/price, could be eligible for award. The trade-offs as stated above, may result in awards to higher rated, higher 37 priced Offerors where the SSA reasonably determines that evaluated strengths or other aspects of the higher rated 38 Offerors proposal outweigh the Cost/Price difference over that of the lower rated, lower Cost/Price offers such that a 39 higher priced Offeror(s) present the Best Value to the Government. 40

M1.4 ELIGBILITY 42

In order to be eligible for award, Offerors are required to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation 43 and must be deemed responsible in accordance with FAR Part 9. This includes, but is not limited to the Offeror’s 44 representations and certifications, submittal of applicable contract documentation, and submittal of an “Acceptable” 45 Small Business Participation Plan. Any exception to the solicitation’s terms and conditions must be fully explained 46 and justified; however, an exception may result in an Offeror not receiving an award if determined unacceptable by 47 the Government. If an Offeror fails to meet all solicitation requirements the Government will not make an award to 48 that Offeror. 49

M2.0 COMPETITIVE RANGE DETERMINATION AND DISCUSSIONS 51

The Government intends to award without discussions. Therefore, each initial offer should contain the Offeror’s 53 best terms from a cost/price and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if 54 determined necessary and/or in the best interest of the Government IAW FAR 15.306(a)(3). Even if no discussions 55 are held, Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal. Clarifications conducted to resolve 56 minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions and the Government reserves the right to award a contract 57 without the opportunity for proposal revision (FAR 15.306(a). If the Government decides to open discussions and 58 establish a competitive range, the competitive range may be reduced for purposes of efficiency to the greatest 59 number that will permit an efficient competition in accordance with FAR 15.306(c)(2). 60

M3.0 TECHNICAL (FACTOR 1) – VOLUME I 61

M3.1 Technical Subfactor 1, 2 and 3 will be evaluated using the combined technical/risk rating. The Combined 63 Technical/Risk Rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies 64 assessed in the Offeror’s proposal. Task Orders 1 and 2 will not be awarded until after the award of the MAC IDIQ 65 is executed. The Combined Technical/Risk Rating evaluations shall utilize the ratings listed below: 66

Table M3-1 – Combined Technical/Risk Ratings Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

Table M3-2 -- Definitions for Deficiency, Strength and Weakness

Deficiency A material failure 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.

Strength An aspect of an offeror's proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Weakness A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Technical Subfactors 4 and 5 will be evaluated as either “acceptable” or “unacceptable”. A rating of “Acceptable” 70 will be required for these Technical Subfactors in order to be eligible for award. 71

M3.2 Technical Capability Subfactors 74 M3.2.1 SUBFACTOR 1 – Sample TO 1 (Combined technical/risk) –The Government will evaluate the Offeror 76 based on the combined technical/risk methodology of its demonstrated capability/approach to the following critical 77 elements: 78

3.2.1.1 Clearly defined technical approach to provide the required services, including depth, breadth, 79 variety, and relevance of methods to be applied to challenges; identified commercial and publicly 80 available data set types and how they are relevant/applied to those techniques; identified technical 81 capabilities to incorporate automation; identified required external subject matter expertise and 82 approach to acquire; identified where innovation can be inserted; 83

3.2.1.2 Clearly defined schedule at a minimum of schedule level 1 detail; 84

3.2.1.3 Soundness of proposed techniques, innovation insertion points, data sets, resources, 85 interdependencies, and deliverables for accomplishing TO requirements; 86

3.2.1.4 Feasibility of staffing approach with the optimal mix of labor categories (skill sets with qualified 87 personnel with the appropriate security clearance, accreditation, certification, and experience) and 88 hours consistent with the methods of performance to successfully complete each task in the TO; 89

3.2.1.5 Clearly identify unique and tailored approach to satisfy the TO requirements and accomplish its 90 objectives to include leveraging previous experience; 91

3.2.1.6 Clearly identify potential risks associated with the proposed solution and risk mitigation 92 approach(es). 93

M3.2.2 SUBFACTOR 2 – Sample TO 2 (Combined technical/risk) – The Government will evaluate the Offeror 95 based on the combined technical/risk methodology of its demonstrated capability/approach to the following critical 96 elements: 97

3.2.2.1 Clearly defined technical approach to providing the required services, including processes and 98 methods to identify and implement emerging technologies across the variants of R&D networks; 99 identified emerging technologies, resources and methods to monitor; identified where innovation 100 can be inserted, maintaining leading edge research and development environment; 101

3.2.2.2 Clearly defined schedule that details the task level 1 effort; 102

3.2.2.3 Feasibility of staffing with the optimal mix of labor categories (skill sets with qualified personnel 103 with the appropriate security clearance, accreditation, certification, and experience) and hours 104 consistent with the methods of performance to successfully complete each task in the TO; 105

3.2.2.4 Clearly defined innovation implementation methods, while sustaining current research 106 environment operational until upgraded; 107

3.2.2.5 Clearly identified potential risks associated with the proposed solution and risk mitigation 108 approach(es). 109

M3.2.3 SUBFACTOR 3 – Demonstrated Capability Narrative (Combined technical/risk) – The Government will 111 evaluate the Offerors based on the combined technical/risk methodology of its demonstrated capability/approach to 112 the following critical elements: 113

3.2.3.1 Capability to cover the four technical focus areas (PWS 1.2) providing technical analysis and 114 services that involve advanced knowledge and are innovative: 115

TABLE M3-3 - TECHNICAL ACCEPTABLE / UNACCEPTABLE RATINGS

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

• Feasibility of prime or subcontractor to perform in a lead or key role to providing a substantial 116 amount of subject matter expertise; 117

• Comparability in size and scope of previous effort; 118

• Relevance of previous projects; 119

• Outcomes of previous projects that demonstrate the feasibility and soundness of the offeror’s 120 technical approach resulting in new knowledge and understanding. 121

3.2.3.2 The Government will evaluate the Offerors based on whether their proposal clearly defines in the 122 overall/program management section: Capability and capacity to successfully execute and manage 123 similar efforts in complexity, scope and size; 124

M3.2.4 SUBFACTOR 4 – Scenario Response (Acceptable/Unacceptable) – The Government will evaluate the 126 Offeror based on capability/approach to the following critical elements: 127

3.2.4.1 Clearly defined technical approach to assessing the scenario and proposing technical solutions to 128 its execution, including reference to similar efforts previously conducted by the Offeror; 129

3.2.4.2 Identification of all critical elements needed to address the scenario integration solution to include: 130

• Key data types, collection methodology, relevant references and required documentation to be 131 developed including exhibits/views, risk management overlays and accreditation approach for 132 the proposed network integration -- all to be executed in a DoD IT environment. 133

• Appropriate skill sets to fulfill the requirements. 134

3.2.4.3 Soundness of identified risks, major potential execution issues and associated risk mitigation 135 approach(es). 136 M3.2.5 SUBFACTOR 5 – Small Business Participation Plan (Acceptable/Unacceptable) - Per DFARS 215.3 and 138 DoD Source Selection Procedures, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s small business participation plan. 139 Large Business Only – The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Small Business Participation Plan. The 141 requirements of the Subfactor are met when the Offeror provides a Small Business Participation Plan that adequately 142 addresses the Offeror’s ability to achieve small business subcontracting goals of at least 10% based on annual total 143 obligated dollars and the requirements of FAR 52.219-8. Offerors will be evaluated on the adequacy of their plan to 144 achieve subcontracting goals of: 3% for Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB), 3% for Service-Disabled Veteran-145 Owned Small Business (SDVOSB), 5% for Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB), 5% for Women Owned Small 146 Business (WOSB), and 3% for Historically Underutilized Business (HUB) Zone. The total of these categories 147 should make up the 10% subcontracting goal. Separately, Offerors on each Sample Task Order shall provide their 148 subcontracting/teaming approach. 149 Small Business Only – Per DFARS 215.3 and DoD Source Selection Procedures. The Government will evaluate the 151 Offeror’s Small Business Participation Plan IAW with the subcontracting goals immediately above this paragraph. 152 The requirements of the Subfactor are met when the Offeror provides a Small Business Participation Plan that 153 adequately addresses the requirements of FAR 52.219-8. 154

M4.0 COST/PRICE (FACTOR 2) – VOLUME II 156

M4.1 COST/PRICE EVALUATION 158

The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s proposed prices submitted in Volume II, Cost/Price Proposal, for 159 reasonableness, balance, and cost realism. A Total Evaluated Price (TEP), which will include an aggregate 160 calculation of FFP CLINs and a Most Probable Cost (MPC) for Cost CLINs, will be presented to the Source 161 Selection Authority (SSA) for consideration in making the best value determination. The Government will evaluate 162 each Offeror’s cost/price proposal using one or more of the proposal analysis techniques described in FAR 15.404. 163 Offerors are advised that the evaluation of Options shall not obligate the Government to exercise said options. 164 The Offeror’s (Prime and Major Subcontractor’s) proposed FFP-LOE rates (CLIN 0003) will be evaluated for 166 reasonableness and unbalanced pricing in accordance with Paragraphs M4.1.1 and M4.1.2 below. The Offeror’s 167 (Prime and Major Subcontractor’s) proposed CPFF rates and factors (CLIN 0001) will also be evaluated for 168 reasonableness, balance, and realism in accordance with Paragraph M4.3.3. The Offeror’s TEP will then be 169 calculated in accordance with Paragraph M4.1.4. The TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only. 170

M4.1.1 Reasonableness: Normally, adequate price competition establishes a fair and reasonable price (FAR 15.404-172 1(b)). Offerors can expect the Contracting Officer to determine adequate price competition to exist for this acquisition. 173 M 4.1.2 Balance: Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced 175 pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the cost/price of one or more contract line items 176 (including the Basic and Option Periods) is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of 177 cost or price analysis techniques (FAR 15.404-1(g)). Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if 178 the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. 179 M4.1.3 Realism: The Government will perform a cost realism analysis on CLINs 0001, 1001 and 2001 to determine 181 a realistic cost for the proposed effort in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(d). Cost realism is the process of 182 independently reviewing and evaluating specific elements of each Offeror’s proposed cost estimate to determine 183 whether the estimated proposed cost elements are realistic for the work to be performed, reflect a clear 184 understanding of the requirements, and are consistent with the unique methods of performance described in the 185 Offeror’s technical proposal. The burden of proof for cost realism rests with the Offeror. Offerors will have to 186 provide their DCAA or DCMA verifiable indirect burden rates and proposed fee rate. Adequate accounting system: 187 The Contracting Officer, with assistance from field agencies, will determine if each Offeror’s accounting system is 188 adequate for award of a cost reimbursement type contract. If an Offeror’s accounting system is not determined to be 189 adequate the Offeror will not receive an award. 190 For cost-type CLINs identified above, the result of cost realism analysis will determine the MPC. The MPC is based 192 upon an analysis of each Offeror’s unique proposal in accordance with FAR 15.404. The MPC may differ from the 193 proposed cost and will reflect the Government’s best estimate of the cost that is most likely to result from the 194 Offeror’s proposal. The TEP will be used in making a determination of best value. 195 M4.1.4 TEP: The TEP will be computed for evaluation purposes only. The TEP will be computed as follows and as 197 illustrated in the table below: 198

1) The Offeror’s CPFF rates (CLINs 0001, 1001, 2001), on-site and off-site, will be evaluated for 200 reasonableness and realism, and an adjustment may be made. The Offeror’s FFP-LOE IDIQ rates 201 (CLINs 0003, 1003 and 2003), on-site and off-site, will be evaluated for reasonableness, but will not be 202 evaluated for realism. The Offeror’s rates will be evaluated by the Government dollarizing the Offeror’s 203 rates at the CLIN level. This will be accomplished by the Government calculating a CLIN price for the 204 prime Offeror based on the following: the Rates Matrix (RFP Attachment 3) and the Government’s 205 expected Labor Category Usage (LCU). The expected LCU will not be disclosed to Offerors. 206

a) LCU: The Government has estimated the total annual hours expected to award during a typical 208 contract year. The Government will assign annual labor hours to each labor category based on the 209 percentage of expected usage of each labor category. The Government’s assigned LCU percentages 210 will not be disclosed to Offerors. 211

b) Rates Matrix: Each prime Offeror shall submit fully-burdened composite (including each of their 213 subcontractors, teaming partners and/or joint venture partners) labor rates (excluding fee or 214 including profit as applicable). Labor rates for all years will be evaluated. Fee will be evaluated at 215 the task order level. 216

c) Evaluated Price Calculation: The evaluated CLIN price will be based on all labor category rates for 218 all years. The LCU will be calculated by taking the total hours for each category multiplied by the 219 expected usage percentage. This number of hours is then multiplied by the applicable labor rate 220 provided in the applicable Rates Matrix (RFP Attachment 3). This calculation will be accomplished 221 for each labor category in each year. The evaluated CLIN price will be the total combined labor 222 category costs of the Offerors. 223

2) In accordance with (IAW) FAR 52.217-8, “Option to Extend Services” an evaluated price will be derived 225 by the Government dollarizing the Offeror’s rates for Calendar Year 2029. 226

Table 4-1 Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

CLIN

(A)

TITLE

(B)

TYPE ANNUAL LABOR

CATEGORY RATES

(C)

ANNUAL LABOR

CATEGORY HOURS

(D)

TOTAL PRICE

0001 Development & Integration Services

Offeror Proposed Gov't Estimated LCU Sum of (C) x (D)

0002 Static-Low Risk Services N/A N/A $5,000 0003 Low Risk Services Offeror Proposed Gov't Estimated LCU Sum of (C) x (D) 1001 Development &

Integration Services Offeror Proposed Gov't Estimated LCU Sum of (C) x (D)

1003 Low Risk Services Offeror Proposed Gov't Estimated LCU Sum of (C) x (D) 2001 Development &

Integration Services Offeror Proposed Gov't Estimated LCU Sum of (C) x (D)

2003 Low Risk Services Offeror Proposed Gov't Estimated LCU Sum of (C) x (D) 3001 Development &

Integration Services Offeror Proposed Gov't Estimated LCU Sum of (C) x (D)

3003 Low Risk Services Offeror Proposed Gov't Estimated LCU Sum of (C) x (D)

M5.0 CONTRACT DOCUMENTATION – VOLUME III 228

The Offeror's Volume III – Contract Documentation will not be a standalone evaluation factor and will not be given 229 a separate rating. The PCO will make a determination of responsibility for all Offerors, IAW FAR 9.1 - Responsible 230 Prospective Contractors. Part of this determination will involve assessing Offerors' technical capabilities and 231 processes. Offeror’s must provide all items requested in Section L5.0; to include, but not limited to, the Facility 232 Clearance letter, Compensation Plans – for prime Offeror and major subcontractors, and Small Business 233 Subcontracting Plan. 234 The Offerors Compensation Plan will be evaluated IAW FAR 52.222-46. Professional compensation that is 236 unrealistically low or not in reasonable relationship to the various job categories may be viewed as evidence of 237 failure to comprehend the complexity of the contract requirements since it may impair the Offeror’s ability to attract 238 and retain competent professional service employees. 239

TABLE M3-3 - TECHNICAL ACCEPTABLE / UNACCEPTABLE RATINGS