Amendment03_Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award.docx.pdf

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

52.217-5 Evaluation Of Options JUL 1990

M1.0 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

This is a best value source selection conducted in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part

15, “Contracting by Negotiation”, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement

(DFARS), and the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS). The Government will use a

Combination Subjective Trade-off/Technically Acceptable-Unacceptable Approach Source Selection Process to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. The Government seeks to award to the Offeror who gives the DoD IAC Program the greatest confidence that it will best meet, or exceed, the requirements. The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against the source selection criteria in this solicitation. 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 past performance of the higher price Offeror outweighs the cost 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.

The Government intends to award a single indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity contract from this 100% small business set-aside competitive full trade-off source selection. The Government reserves the right to not award if the

SSA determines it is in the Government's best interests. Evaluation factors for award are:

M1.1 FACTORS and SUBFACTORS

The Government will evaluate proposals based upon the following Factors and Subfactors:

Factor 1 – Past Performance (PP) (Volume I)

– Offeror shall provide a maximum of five (5) PP contracts, with a minimum of three (3) from the Prime

– Recency (Completed within three (3) years of Block 05 of the SF33 (RFP release)

– Relevancy ratings involves the magnitude and technical complexity

– Performance Quality

Factor 2 – Technical Capability (Volume II)

Subfactor 1: Transition

Subfactor 2: Operations Approach

Subfactor 3: Management Approach

Factor 3 – Cost/Price (Volume III)

A Cost/Price Table will be provided and Offerors will propose a cost/price for their proposed solution to fulfilling the requirements.

M1.2 PAST PERFORMANCE

For this acquisition only Offerors that receive a Past Performance Confidence Rating of “Satisfactory” or

“Substantial” confidence will be considered awardable.

M1.3 TECHNICAL

Subfactor 2 and 3 will be evaluated using a Combined Technical/Risk Rating, rated as described in subparagraph

M3.1.below. Subfactor 1 will be evaluated on an “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” basis. Offerors that receive a rating of “Yellow - Marginal” or “Red - Unacceptable” for the applicable Subfactor or a rating of “Unacceptable” for any of the other Subfactors will not be considered awardable.

M1.4 RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS

Trade-offs may be made between Factor 1- Past Performance, Factor 2- Technical, Subfactor 2 (Operations

Approach), Subfactor 3 (Management Approach), and Factor 3 Cost/Price if the superior performance warrants the price differential. The remaining Technical Factor, Subfactor 1 (Transition) will be rated as

“Acceptable/Unacceptable.” Technical and Past Performance are equal in importance, and when combined are significantly more important than Cost/Price. Within Factor 2 – Subfactor 2 (Operations Approach), is more important than Subfactor 3 (Management Approach). Cost/Price shall be considered in the selection decision.

If any Subfactors are rated as “Unacceptable” the proposal will be unawardable and no further evaluation of the offeror’s proposal will occur. Offerors that are determined for all Technical Subfactors to be at least technically

“Acceptable”, and evaluated under Factor 1 Past Performance as having a confidence rating of “Substantial” or

“Satisfactory” and provide a fair and reasonable Cost/Price, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be arranged by adjectival ratings and Most Probable Cost (MPC), including option periods, from lowest to highest. The trade-offs as stated above, may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced Offeror where the SSA reasonably determines that evaluated strengths or other aspects of the higher rated Offeror’s proposal outweigh the Cost/Price difference over that of the lower rated, lower Cost/Price offer such that the higher priced Offeror presents the Best

Value. The Government reserves the right to make an ID/IQ contract award to a higher rated technical and or performance confidence Offeror based on the aspects of technical and or past performance that resulted in the higher rating.

M1.4.1 In order to be eligible for award, Offerors are required to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation and must be deemed responsible in accordance with FAR Part 9. This includes, but is not limited to the

Offeror’s representations and certifications, and submittal of applicable contract documentation. Any exception to the solicitation’s terms and conditions must be fully explained and justified. If an Offeror fails to meet the solicitation requirements the Government will not make an award to that Offeror.

M2.0 COMPETITIVE RANGE DETERMINATION AND DISCUSSIONS

The Government intends to make award without discussions. Therefore, each initial offer should contain the

Offeror’s best terms from a cost/price and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined to be necessary and or in the best interest of the Government IAW FAR 15.306(a)(3). If applicable, even if no discussions are held, Offerors will be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal or comment on adverse past performance information to which the Offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Clarifications conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions and the

Government reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision. If the Government decides to open discussions and establish a competitive range, the competitive range may be reduced for purposes of efficiency to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition in accordance with FAR 15.306(c)(2). The contracting officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

M3.0 EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS

M3.1 PAST PERFORMANCE (FACTOR 1) – VOLUME I

The Government will conduct an in-depth review and evaluation of past performance information. Past performance information may be obtained through any of the following: 1) the Offeror’s past performance volume; 2) past

Performance Information Sheets; 3) the Contractor Performance Assessment Rating System (CPARS); 4) Past

Performance Questionnaires (PPQ); 5) Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS); 6) Fee

Determining Officials; 7) Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), 8) the Defense

Contract Management Agency (DCMA); 9) interviews with Program Managers and Contracting Officers; and 10) other systems of Government departments, agencies, and other sources known to the Government (which may include commercial references).

The Government will perform a subjective assessment of the offerors’ past performance efforts, taking into consideration multiple aspects of that performance using the recency, relevance, and performance quality criteria detailed below to determine an overall single performance confidence rating. The Government will evaluate each

Offeror’s past performance contract references on an individual basis and will assess the Offeror’s entire past performance in aggregate (which includes, if applicable, the past performance of its subcontractors/teaming partners/joint venture partners) reviewed. The rating for the past performance factor is the Government’s assessment of confidence, based upon the Offeror’s performance record, that the Offeror will successfully perform on this acquisition as proposed. Offerors without a record of recent or relevant past performance or for whom information is not available will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably as a result, and will receive a “Neutral Confidence” rating.

To be eligible to receive an overall “Satisfactory” or "Substantial" past performance confidence rating, the Prime

Offeror must provide at least three (3) of its own Past Performance contract references (Past Performance

Information Sheet) out of the five (5) overall Past Performance contract references and cover at least four (4) of the nine (9) technical focus areas listed below. Together, the Offerors’ Team (to include both the Prime and subcontractors/teaming partners/joint venture partners) past performances must cover at least six (6) of the nine (9)

TFAs listed below. If the Offeror fails to meet this requirement, no further evaluation will be conducted.

Technical Focus Areas: 1) Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP), 2) Cyber Security, 3) Modeling and Simulation,

4) C4ISR, 5) Survivability and Vulnerability, 6) RMQSI, 7) Autonomous Weapon Systems, 8) Biometrics, and 9)

Chemical Biological Radiological Nuclear (CBRN) Defense.

M3.1.1 RECENCY

In determining recency the Government will only consider contracts (or task/delivery orders if past performance information was collected at the task/delivery order level) completed or ongoing within the past three (3) years of

Block 05 of the SF33 (RFP release). Additionally the Government will not consider any contract/order where performance began six (6) months or less prior to the RFP date identified in Block 05 of the SF33. If the ordering period on an ID/IQ type contract has expired but the performance period on a Task Order is still ongoing or within the above dates, the performance of the Task Order will be considered within the recency parameters.

M3.1.2 RELEVANCY

For the past performance evaluation to be an effective predictor of future success, the past performance history being evaluated must be Somewhat Relevant, Relevant, or Very Relevant. The Government views joint venture partners the same as a Prime Offeror. The Government will evaluate the Magnitude and Technical Complexity relevancy factors in aggregate based on the following definitions.

PAST PERFORMANCE 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.

M3.1.2.1 The determination of relevance is contingent on an assessment of the technical complexity (technical tasks performed and Technical Focus areas covered), contract type, dollar value (magnitude), and other similarities of the contract being reviewed to those required to perform on the IAC BCO contract.

M3.1.2.1.1 Magnitude of effort (Cost & type of contract):

For ID/IQ type contracts with past performance assessed at the ID/IQ level. (The total dollar value will be based on the total of individual Orders won under the ID/IQ (Block 7 of Section L Attachment L-5)):

MAGNITUDE OF EFFORT (ID/IQ LEVEL)

VERY

RELEVANT

Performed in the capacity as the Prime:

DoD Cost-reimbursement type contract(s) equal to or greater than $60M

RELEVANT

Performed in the capacity as the Prime or Subcontractor:

DoD Cost-reimbursement type contract(s) equal to or greater than $30M and less than

$60M;

Non DoD Cost-reimbursement type contract(s) equal to or greater than $40M;

Any non-cost-reimbursement contract(s) equal to or greater than $60M

SOMEWHAT

RELEVANT

Performed in the capacity as the Prime or Subcontractor:

DoD Cost-reimbursement type contract(s) equal to or greater than $20M and less than

$30M;

Non DoD Cost-reimbursement type contract(s) equal to or greater than $25M less than

$40M;

Non-cost-reimbursement contract(s) equal to or greater than $25M and less than $60M

NOT RELEVANT

Performed in the capacity as the Prime or Subcontractor:

DoD Cost-reimbursement type contract(s) less than $20M;

Any non-DoD or non-cost-reimbursement contract(s) less than $25M.

b. For Delivery/Task Orders under ID/IQ type contracts where past performance is assessed at the Delivery/Task

Order level or any other single award contract type:

MAGNITUDE OF EFFORT (Delivery/Task Order Level)

VERY

RELEVANT

Performed in the capacity as the Prime:

DoD Cost-reimbursement type delivery/task order(s) equal to or greater than $15M

RELEVANT

Performed in the capacity as the Prime or Subcontractor:

DoD Cost-reimbursement type delivery/task order(s) equal to or greater than $5M and less than $15M;

Non DoD Cost-reimbursement type delivery/task order(s) equal to or greater than $6M;

Any non-cost-reimbursement delivery/task order(s) equal to or greater than $9M

SOMEWHAT

RELEVANT

Performed in the capacity as the Prime or Subcontractor:

DoD Cost-reimbursement type delivery/task order(s) equal to or greater than $3M and less than $5M; Non DoD Cost-reimbursement type delivery/task order(s) equal to or greater than $1.5M less than $6M;

Non-cost-reimbursement delivery/task order(s) equal to or greater than $1.5M and less than $9M

NOT RELEVANT

Performed in the capacity as the Prime or Subcontractor:

DoD Cost-reimbursement type delivery/task order(s) less than $3M;

Any non-DoD or non-cost-reimbursement delivery/task order(s) less than $1.5M.

M3.1.2.1.2 Technical Complexity:

The Government will evaluate technical complexity based on the combination of Technical Focus Areas and

Technical Performance Areas of the RDT&E services and other R&D-related analytical services as defined at

Section L Attachment J-5. Services may include but are not limited to, all aspects of identified or potential military, national security-related, and dual use applications of related technologies and methods, as well as the development of tools and techniques that enhance the mission of the DoD Research and Engineering community in which experienced and skilled personnel with professional credentials are required for successful execution of the requirement.

M3.1.3 PERFORMANCE QUALITY

The Government will evaluate the quality of performance (how well the contractor performed on the contracts) of the Offeror’s recent and relevant performance record in determining the overall confidence in the Offeror's ability to successfully perform the IAC BCO technical focus areas requirements. Performance quality ratings will be assessed against 1) Technical, 2) Management, and 3) Cost using the following qualitative performance ratings. In addition, performance quality ratings will be weighed as follows: Technical is equal to Management and Cost combined, and

Management is more important than Cost.

All CPARS ratings of "VERY GOOD" will be treated as/equal to the rating of "SATISFACTORY" for performance quality.

PERFORMANCE QUALITY ASSESSMENT

Rating Definition

Exceptional

The contractor’s performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many

(requirements) to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

Satisfactory

The contractor’s performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance contained some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or was satisfactory.

Marginal

Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions or the contractor’s proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

Unacceptable

Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

Not Applicable Unable to rate the contractor’s performance.

M3.1.4 PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE

The Performance Confidence Assessment represents the single overall assessment, based on the evaluation of the

Offeror’s past performance record, of the Government’s expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the requirements of the solicitation. The Performance Confidence Assessment ratings are defined below. Offerors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information is not available will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably as a result, and will receive a “Neutral Confidence” rating. A strong record of relevant past performance will 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. More relevant performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less relevant effort.

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.

NEUTRAL CONFIDENCE

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.

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.

M3.1.4.1 ADVERSE PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

For this acquisition, adverse past performance is specifically defined as “Limited” or “No” confidence” ratings.

Offerors with adverse past performance information, if not previously notified, will be given the opportunity to respond to a clarification evaluation notice. When relevant performance records indicate adverse past performance information the Government will consider the number and severity of the problems, the appropriateness and/or effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised), and the Offeror’s overall work record before assigning a rating. Prompt corrective action in isolated instances may not outweigh overall negative trends.

Although a rating of “Neutral Confidence” is not considered to be adverse past performance information, a strong record of relevant past performance will be considered more advantageous to the Government than a “Neutral

Confidence” rating.

M3.1.4.2 Past performance information, including CPARS/PPIRS and questionnaires, are confidential and shall not be released to anyone outside the Government source selection process. Offerors are cautioned that contacting or seeking out source(s) of past performance information is strictly prohibited. Any attempts to influence past performance ratings will be perceived negatively and could impact the overall performance confidence rating.

Offerors are responsible for ensuring that all their subcontractors, teaming partners, and joint venture partners are aware of this information and are in compliance.

M3.2 TECHNICAL (FACTOR 2) – VOLUME II

Each Technical subfactor will include a combined technical/risk rating. The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies assessed in the Offeror’s proposal. The combined technical/risk evaluations shall utilize the ratings listed below.

M.3.2.1 Combined Technical/Risk Ratings:

COMBINED TECHNCIAL/ RISK RATING

Rating Description

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.

Definitions for Deficiency, Strength, Weakness, and Significant Weakness

Rating Definition

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.

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

M3.2.2 Technical Subfactors

M3.2.2.1 Subfactor 1 – Transition -- the Offeror will be evaluated based on the following criteria and applied against the section L requirements for Subfactor 1 – Transition.

M3.2.2.1.1 The proposal provides a feasible approach to execute a sound and feasible transition for all three legacy

BCOs that ensures seamless uninterrupted service delivery within 90 days from the first date of phase-in performance, starting with the day of award. The proposal provides details of the phase-in of personnel and management of phase-in efforts. The phase-in approach identifies key personnel positions in the organizational structure and their time phasing, even if they are proposing no need to transition from a different contractor or are proposing a shorter than 90 day transition period. The Phase-In Transition Plan meets the requirements in PWS paragraphs 3.1 and 3.2.

M3.2.2.2. Subfactor 2 – Operations Approach: the Offeror will be evaluated based on the following criteria and applied against the section L requirements for Subfactor 2 – Operations Approach.

M3.2.2.2.1 The proposal demonstrates a clear understanding of the requirements, describes an approach that is capable of satisfying all requirements and is realistically achievable. The proposed approach is detailed, defined, and completes the requirements of the PWS. The proposal details the Offeror’s approach, techniques, resources, and sources to monitor and extract CS, DS, and HD domain related STI from engineering, technical, and scientific information where the STI was funded, at least in part, by the DoD or U.S. government. The contractor shall also demonstrate its approach of following all appropriate security regulations and restrictions in the collection and use of unclassified, controlled unclassified (CUI), and classified STI (ref: PWS Task# 1.5.1).

M3.2.2.2.2 The proposal demonstrates a clear understanding of the requirements, describes an approach that is capable of satisfying all requirements and is realistically achievable. The proposed approach is detailed, defined, and completes the requirements of the PWS. The Offeror provides a detailed process to ensure bona fide STI is uploaded to DTIC's R&E Gateway, demonstrate approach of evaluating both classified and unclassified STI, regardless of source, to ensure that the STI is current, applicable to the DoD and CS, DS, and HD domain areas, complete, accurate, OCR readable, in PDF format, and includes all necessary security markings / distribution restrictions (ref:

PWS Task# 1.5.1).

M3.2.2.2.3 The proposal demonstrates a clear understanding of the requirements, describes an approach that is capable of satisfying all requirements and is realistically achievable. The proposed approach is detailed, defined, and completes the requirements of the PWS. The Offeror details the criteria required to be identified as a Subject Matter

Expert (SME) within the BCO domains. The Offeror describes its approach to use SMEs to support the individual

BCO technical focus areas. The Offeror describes its approach on how it plans to use the SME network in the performance of BCO tasks (ref: PWS Task# 1.5.2.1).

M3.2.2.2.4 The proposal demonstrates a clear understanding of the requirements, describes an approach that is capable of satisfying all requirements and is realistically achievable. The proposed approach is detailed, defined, and completes the requirements of the PWS. The proposal describes the Offeror’s approach to creating curated literature searches and describes their approach to use the gap analysis information provided by the IAC Multiple Award

Contract vendors (ref: PWS Task# 1.5.2.2).

M3.2.2.2.5 The proposal demonstrates a clear understanding of the requirements, describes an approach that is capable of satisfying all requirements and is realistically achievable. The proposed approach is detailed, defined, and completes the requirements of the PWS. The Offeror details its approach to receiving, tracking, and responding to

Technical Inquiries, ETIs, and STOs using SMEs when needed. The proposal describes the Offeror’s capability and capacity to successfully execute the equivalent of at least seven (7) STOs valued over $800k each concurrently, to include leveraging the resources of a multifunctional team and managing subcontractors as necessary (ref: PWS

Task# 1.5.2.3).

M3.2.2.2.6 The proposal demonstrates a clear understanding of the requirements, describes an approach that is capable of satisfying all requirements and is realistically achievable. The proposed approach is detailed, defined, and it completes the requirements of the PWS. The Offeror details its approach to providing training to the S&T community including training objectives, strategy, methods, and tactics (ref: PWS Task# 1.5.3.4).

M3.2.2.2.7 The proposal demonstrates a clear understanding of the requirements, describes an approach that is capable of satisfying all requirements and is realistically achievable. The proposed approach is detailed, defined, and completes the requirements of the PWS. The proposal describes the Offeror’s approach to establish communities of practice (CoP) through affiliations, associations, and specific involvement in and with the defense research, development, testing, and engineering community, to include DoD Communities of Interest (CoI), Federal

Agencies, contractors, educational organizations, technical societies, and state and local governments (ref: PWS

Task# 1.5.3.6).

M3.2.2.2.8 The proposal demonstrates a clear understanding of the requirements, describes an approach that is capable of satisfying all requirements and is realistically achievable. The proposed approach is detailed, defined, and completes the requirements of the PWS. The proposed approach details the Offeror’s plan and methods to market/expand awareness of the IAC program, products, and services, making the program more useful and relevant to key customers. The Offeror shall detail its approach and methods to establish and maintain relationships with the

COCOMs, Labs, and PEOs and describe how these relationships will enable the Offeror to expand its offering of

ETIs and STOs (ref: PWS Task# 1.5.3.7).

M3.2.2.3 Subfactor 3 – Management -- the Offeror will be evaluated based on the following criteria and applied against the section L requirements for Subfactor 3 – Management.

M3.2.2.3.1 The proposal demonstrates a clear understanding of the requirements, describes an approach that is capable of satisfying all requirements and is realistically achievable. The proposed approach is detailed, defined, and completes the requirements of the PWS. The Offeror lists its teaming partners and subcontractors the TFAs they will be expected to cover. The Offeror provides subcontracts / teaming agreements and shows coverage of all 22 TFAs.

The proposed utilization and successful management of identified subcontractors/teaming partners including acceptable management and oversight approach, including techniques and tools that will be used for planning, directing controlling and reporting performance of the IAC BCO (ref: PWS Task# 1.5.4 and 1.15).

M3.2.2.3.2 The proposal demonstrates a clear understanding of the requirements, describes an approach that is capable of satisfying all requirements and is realistically achievable. The proposed approach is detailed, defined, and completes the requirements of the PWS. The proposal details the Offeror’s plan to staff the contract with an adequate number and appropriate mix of personnel who are U.S. citizens and possess at least a Secret clearance, at time of contract award; includes the Offeror’s reach back capability that will be used to recruit, retain and replace qualified employees/analysts (or access to consultants) with appropriate security clearances to support the full range of BCO requirements throughout the life of the contract. Offerors shall address the ability to staff requirements on short notice. Proposed labor categories include minimum education and experience qualifications (ref: PWS Task#

1.5.4, 1.7.1, and 1.14).

M3.2.2.3.3 The proposal demonstrates a clear understanding of the requirements, describes an approach that is capable of satisfying all requirements and is realistically achievable. The proposed approach is detailed, defined, and completes the requirements of the PWS. The proposal details the Offeror’s approach to quality management to include quality control and quality assurance (ref: PWS Task# 2.1, 2.2. and 2.3).

M3.2.2.3.4 The proposal demonstrates a clear understanding of the requirements, describes an approach that is capable of satisfying all requirements and is realistically achievable. The proposed approach is detailed, defined, and completes the requirements of the PWS. The proposal details the Offeror’s plan to make continuous program improvements and the Offeror's approach to plan, monitor and report performance (ref: PWS Task# 1.5.4).

M3.2.2.3.5 The proposal shall include a small business participation plan, describing an approach that demonstrates small business concerns will be utilized to the fullest extent consistent with efficient contract performance.

M3.3 COST/PRICE (FACTOR 3) – VOLUME III

M3.3.1 COST/PRICE EVALUATION

Offerors will be required to complete a Government developed cost/price table that will be incorporated as an attachment in Section J of the RFP. The cost/price Table will provide the structure for all Offerors to submit proposed pricing information in the same format. The Government will analyze each proposal to determine whether the proposed cost/price is fair and reasonable, balanced and realistic. Each Offeror’s total proposed cost/price will be evaluated by adding together the proposed cost/price, the CPFF of the DS transition plan, transition plans CS and

HD, and for the Extension of Services (not to exceed 6 months). The Government will perform a cost realism analysis on each Offeror's proposed cost plus fixed fee elements per FAR 15.404-1 and DoD Source Selection

Procedures as detailed under M.3.3.3 below. The Government may make adjustments to an Offeror’s proposed price for evaluation purposes. The Most Probable Cost (MPC) resulting from the cost realism analysis will serve as the evaluated price for the Best Value determination.

M3.3.2 PRICE ANALYSIS

The Government will perform a price analysis by comparing Offerors' prices to each other and to the Independent

Government Cost Estimate (IGCE).

M3.3.3 COST REALISM

The cost realism analysis is the process of independently reviewing and evaluating specific elements of each

Offeror's proposed cost estimate to determine whether the estimated proposed cost elements are realistic for the work to be performed; whether they reflect a clear understanding of the requirements; and whether they are consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the Offeror's technical proposal

Volume II. The Government will perform a cost realism analysis on the Offeror’s proposed cost for CLINs 0001, 0002, 0003, 0004, 1004, 2004, 6001, 6002, 6003, 6004, and 6005. A most probable cost analysis shall be performed for each Offeror. Offerors will be instructed that fee will not be allowed on the cost of travel within a TO requirement. However, Offerors will be allowed and instructed to propose, in accordance with their approved cost accounting structure, their indirect burden rate(s) that will be applied to travel costs.

To verify and facilitate the evaluation of proposal information requested in Section L of this solicitation, information may be obtained from other sources including, but not limited to, Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA), Defense

Contract Management Agency (DCMA), U.S. Department of Labor, Global Insight indices and any other resource available to the Government. As a result of the realism analysis the Government may make a MPC adjustment IAW

FAR 15.404-1(d)(2), to the Offerors proposed cost, and profit/fee where appropriate, to reflect the Government’s best estimate of the cost most likely to result from the Offeror’s proposal. An Offeror shall not receive a final contract award if they are not determined realistic.

M3.3.4 PRICE REASONABLENESS

The Government will evaluate the price information submitted in each Offeror’s price proposal, as required by

Section L, to determine if proposed prices are fair and reasonable IAW the proposal analysis techniques described in

FAR 15.404-1. Evaluation of the option periods will not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s). An

Offeror shall not receive a final contract award if their proposed price is not determined fair and reasonable.

M3.3.5 COMPENSATION PLAN

The Offeror’s Compensation Plan submitted in the IAC BCO Cost/Price Table, setting forth salaries and fringe benefits proposed for professional employees, will also be evaluated IAW FAR 52.222-46. Professional compensation that is unrealistically low or not in reasonable relationship to the various job categories may be viewed as evidence of failure to comprehend the complexity of the contract requirements since it may impair the

Offeror’s ability to attract and retain competent professional service employees.

M3.3.6 UNBALANCED OFFER

Offerors are cautioned against submitting an unbalanced offer. 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 or more contract line items is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. All offers with separately priced line items or subline items shall be analyzed to determine if the prices are unbalanced. An Offeror may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

M3.3.7 LINE of CREDIT, REVOLVING CREDIT AGREEMENT or UNSECURED CREDIT FACILITY

The Offeror shall provide a line of credit or revolving credit agreement or unsecured credit facility in Volume III

Cost/Price to demonstrate the Offeror‘s ability to obtain and maintain required resources. A contract may only be awarded to an Offeror who has sufficient resources to perform on this contract; therefore, a line of credit or revolving credit agreement or unsecured credit facility will serve as acceptable evidence to the Contracting Officer that the Offeror has sufficient financial resources to cover startup expenses for this acquisition IAW FAR 9.104-

3(a). The letter shall be issued by a bank or other financial institution providing the Offeror an available line of credit or revolving credit agreement or unsecured credit facility for a minimum of $1 million. The line of credit or revolving credit agreement or unsecured credit facility shall include contact information of the issuing organization.

The line of credit or unsecured credit facility may be contingent upon award of the IAC BCO.

M3.3.8 ADEQUATE ACCOUNTING SYSTEM

Existence of an adequate accounting system for determining and segregating costs applicable to this contract is required for award of a cost reimbursement type contract. If a Contractor fails to demonstrate an adequate accounting system, the Contacting Officer reserves the right to request a pre-award survey of prospective

Contractor’s accounting system. Failure to demonstrate an adequate accounting system may negatively impact a

Contractor’s eligibility for award.

M3.3.9 The government will use the IAC BCOs Cost/Price Model submitted as part of Volume III to validate the

ETI FFP-LOE rate proposed for each year/period.

M4.0 CONTRACT DOCUMENTATION – VOLUME IV

The Offeror's Volume IV – Contract Documentation will not be a standalone evaluation factor and will not be given a separate rating. However, the Government will assess the Offerors responsiveness and responsibility, and an

Offeror that is determined not responsive or responsible may not receive a final contract award.