Section M DRAFT.pdf

HEDC SMaC: Section M

Section M

Evaluation Factors for Award

Hill Enterprise Data Center (HEDC)

Sustainment, Modernization, and Consolidation (SMaC)

XX January 2020

Contents

1 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD THROUGH SOURCE SELECTION

1.1 SOURCE SELECTION METHODOLOGY

1.2 NUMBER OF CONTRACTS TO BE AWARDED

1.3 CORRECTION POTENTIAL OF PROPOSALS

1.4 DISCUSSIONS

2 FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS USED FOR EVALUATION

2.1 RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS

2.2 TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT

2.3 TECHNICAL RATING

2.4 TECHNICAL RISK RATING

2.5 TECHNICAL ACCEPTABLE/UNACCEPTABLE RATING

2.6 PROPOSAL EVALUATION ........................................ ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

2.6.1 Volume I, Factor One: Technical

3 VOLUME II, FACTOR TWO: PRICE

3.1 COMPLETENESS

3.2 REASONABLENESS

3.3 BALANCE

3.4 TOTAL EVALUATED PRICE (TEP) MATRIX, SECTION J ATTACHMENT 3

3.4.1 Labor Rates

3.4.2 Unacceptable Technical Subfactors

3.5 PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION PLAN

4 VOLUME III: CONTRACT DOCUMENTATION

5 SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS, AND CONDITIONS

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD THROUGH SOURCE SELECTION

1.1 Source Selection Methodology

This acquisition will utilize the Tradeoff source selection procedures in accordance with FAR

15.3 as supplemented by the DoD Source Selection Procedures referenced in DFARS 215.300 and Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS) Mandatory Procedures

5315.3 to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. These regulations are available electronically at acquisition.gov. In using the best value approach, the Government seeks to award to the offeror who gives the Air Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet or exceed the HEDC SMaC contract requirements, in a way that will be the most advantageous to the Government. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher Total

Evaluated Price (TEP) offeror where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the technical superiority and/or overall business approach of the higher priced offeror is determined to be of the best value to the Government. To arrive at a best value decision, the SSA will integrate the source selection team’s evaluations of the factors and subfactors described in this document. While the

Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the tradeoff process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the selection process.

Offerors are reminded that the Government will only evaluate one proposal from each offeror.

1.2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to select one contractor for this effort; however, the Government reserves the right to award no contract at all, depending on the quality of the proposals and prices submitted and the availability of funds.

1.3 Correction Potential of Proposals

The Government may consider, throughout the evaluation, the “correction potential” of any proposal. The judgment of such “correction potential” is within the sole discretion of the

Government. If an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal not meeting the Government’s requirements is not considered easily correctable within the Government’s time constraints, the Offeror may be eliminated from the competition in accordance with (IAW) FAR 15.306(c).

Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal conforms to all required terms and conditions, includes all required representations and certifications, meets or exceeds all requirements set forth in the RFP, and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation as described in Section 2 below.

1.4 Discussions

The offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussions. However, the Government reserves the right, if it is determined to be in its best interest, to hold discussions. Offeror responses to Evaluation

Notices (ENs) and the Request for Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. If the Offeror’s proposal remains in the competitive range at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the FPR are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the Offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award or may affect the offeror’s ratings.

2 FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS USED FOR EVALUATION

A detailed and complete analysis of each offeror’s proposal will be performed. Award will be made to the offeror with the proposal that is the best value to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below:

Factor 1: Technical

Subfactor One: Scenario 1 – Onboarding and Technology Capabilities

Subfactor Two: Scenario 2 – Program and Configuration Management

Subfactor Three: Corporate Experience

Subfactor Four: Transition Plan

Subfactor Five: Cybersecurity

Factor 2: Price

2.1 Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors

IAW FAR 15.304(e), the Technical factor, which includes the technical rating and technical risk rating, is significantly more important than price. However, price will contribute to the selection decision. Within Factor I, each Subfactor is approximately equal in importance.

2.2 Technical Assessment

The evaluation of the technical proposal provides for two distinct but related assessments:

Technical Rating and Technical Risk Rating. These two ratings have approximately equal impact for the evaluation of each Technical subfactor. The Technical Rating includes consideration of proposal strengths and deficiencies, defined below:

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.

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. (See FAR 15.001)

The separate Technical Risk Rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with proposal weaknesses, defined below:

Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. (See FAR 15.001)

Significant Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. (See FAR 15.001)

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s approach and capabilities explanation and how they will use their approach and capabilities to accomplish/satisfy requirements, and not merely restate requirements.

2.3 Technical Rating

The technical rating evaluates the quality of the offeror’s technical solution for meeting the

Government’s requirement. Technical Subfactors One, Two, and Three will receive one of the color ratings described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures excerpted below, which focuses on the strengths and deficiencies of the offeror's proposal. Subfactor ratings will not be rolled up into an overall color rating for the Technical factor.

Technical Ratings:

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 unawardable.

2.4 Technical Risk Rating

Technical risk, which is manifested by the identification of weaknesses, assesses the degree to which an offeror’s proposed approach for the requirements of the solicitation may cause disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased

Government oversight, or unsuccessful contract performance. The evaluation shall address the

Source Selection Team’s identification of any weaknesses and/or significant weaknesses.

Technical Subfactors One, Two, and Three will receive a Technical Risk Rating (in addition to the color adjectival rating in section 2.4) as described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, excerpted below.

Technical Risk Ratings:

Adjectival 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.

2.5 Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating

The Government’s technical evaluation team will evaluate Subfactors Four and Five on an acceptable or unacceptable basis as described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, as excerpted below. An “Unacceptable” rating in this subfactor will be considered a deficiency and render the entire Technical Factor unacceptable.

Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings:

Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

2.6 Volume I, Factor One: Technical

The technical volume will be evaluated to determine the degree to which the offeror addresses the scenarios, corporate experience, and capabilities and shows evidence of meeting or exceeding the minimum requirements of each Technical subfactor.

As part of Volume I the Government will evaluate the following Five Technical subfactors:

Subfactor One: Scenario 1 – Onboarding and Technology Capabilities

Subfactor Two: Scenario 2 – Program and Configuration Management

Subfactor Three: Corporate Experience

Subfactor Four: Transition Plan

Subfactor Five: Cybersecurity

2.6.1 Subfactor One: Scenario 1 – Onboarding and Technology Capabilities

The government’s evaluation of this scenario (Section L; Appendix A) will focus on the degree to which the offeror demonstrates a robust and mature approach to the scenario requirements below:

1) A solution overview that details the following areas:

a. Hardware Implementation

b. Software Implementation

c. Network requirements

d. Storage requirements

e. Virtualization requirements

2) A project plan summary that details the following:

a. Purpose

b. Scope

c. Stakeholders

d. Manpower Summary (see labor categories in PWS paragraph 3.1)

3) A project schedule (MS Project format – assume Jun 1, 2020 start date) that details tasks and dependencies including:

a. WBS

b. Milestones

c. Resources (labor categories [PWS para 3.1] and number of hours per labor category)

4) A bill of material summary that details the following:

a. Hardware specifications and quantities

b. Software specifications and quantities

c. Additional services (if required)

5) A risk management summary that identifies any risks, the risk level

(low, moderate, or high), and mitigation strategy (if applicable)

a. Programmatic Risk

b. Operational Risk

c. Cyber Risk

2.6.2 Subfactor Two: Scenario 2 – Program and Configuration Management

The Government’s evaluation of this scenario (Section L; Appendix B) will focus on the degree to which the offeror demonstrates a robust and mature approach to the scenario requirements below:

1) Program management plan that details the following:

a. The effects of unplanned workload on onboarding, sustainment, modernization, and cybersecurity

b. Identification and mitigation of risks and schedule impacts

c. Capabilities utilized to maintain establish service levels

2) Configuration baseline recommendations that detail how modernization affects the following:

a. Sustainment

b. Cybersecurity

c. Service levels

d. Compliance with DoD policies

3) Surge plan that details the following:

a. Staffing approach to address an unexpected 90-day corporate-level, high-priority effort in the modernization area without schedule and service level impacts to the other areas.

2.6.3 Subfactor Three: Corporate Experience

The Government’s evaluation of this subfactor will focus on the degree to which the offeror’s examples of corporate experience within the last 5 years demonstrates depth and breadth of experience in the areas below:

1) Management of a Data Center

a. Tier of data center (Uptime Institute Data Center Site

Infrastructure Tier Standard) minimum acceptability for this subfactor is Tier I

b. Multi-tenancy characteristics of applications and infrastructure

2) Onboarding of Legacy Applications in the following methodologies:

a. Agile

b. Waterfall

c. Hybrid

d. Incremental

3) Technologies used in support of the following:

a. Operating systems (minimum acceptability for this subfactor is

Microsoft and Redhat)

b. Databases (minimum acceptability for this subfactor is Microsoft and Oracle)

c. Application servers (minimum acceptability for this subfactor is

Microsoft, Oracle, and IBM)

d. Virtualization (minimum acceptability for this subfactor is

VMware and Microsoft)

e. Storage (minimum acceptability for this subfactor is EMC)

f. Networking (minimum acceptability for this subfactor is F5, Cisco, and Brocade)

4) Risk management in the following categories:

a. Programmatic

b. Operational

c. Cyber

5) Cybersecurity

a. Integrating cybersecurity considerations into the programs SE, SSE and T&E processes utilizing a detailed defense-in-depth approach

2.6.4 Subfactor Four: Transition Plan

This subfactor will be evaluated to ensure that the proposal includes a transition plan that meets the requirement to have operational control of the HEDC within 30-45 days of contract award.

This plan is acceptable when it provides sufficient methodologies, rationale, and evidence to demonstrate the following:

1) How key personnel positions (PWS para 4.4 thru 4.8) are (or will be) employed, trained, certified, and able to work accordingly with the appropriate clearances to satisfy the HEDC SMaC requirements within the 30-45 day transition period

2) How all personnel positions will be phased-in for each respective area.

2.6.5 Subfactor Five: Cybersecurity

This subfactor will be evaluated to ensure that the proposal adheres to cybersecurity requirements.

The approach is technically acceptable when the proposal illustrates compliance and implementation of NIST SP 800-171r1 through the synopsis of the offeror’s System Security Plan and Plan of Action and Milestones (POAM).

3 VOLUME II, FACTOR TWO: PRICE

The criteria used for evaluation of the Price Factor will be Completeness, Reasonableness, Balance, and

Total Evaluated Price (TEP). The TEP will be a consideration in the best value award decision. The

TEP will be computed and provided to the Source Selection Authority for award purposes only and does not become part of the contract at award. However, the rates proposed in the TEP Matrix used to calculate the TEP will become contractually binding.

3.1 Completeness

The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated for compliance with Section L and all other portions of the Request for Proposal (RFP). The offeror shall ensure that they have provided all requested pricing information.

3.2 Reasonableness

The determination of reasonableness will consist of reviewing all the proposed CLINs with the exception of the Cost Reimbursable (CR) Travel CLINs (0005, 1005, 2005, and 3005). These

CRNF CLINs will be evaluated for reasonableness during the contract when the requirements covered under them are specified, incurred, and determined reasonable by the administrative contracting officer. All other CLINs will be reviewed for reasonableness IAW the techniques described in FAR 15.404-1. Generally adequate price competition is sufficient to satisfy the requirement for ensuring reasonableness. For a price to be considered reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay when consideration is given to prices in the market and its affordability. If adequate price competition is not obtained or if reasonableness cannot be determined, additional information will be required to support the proposed price.

3.3 Balance

The Government shall analyze offers to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to labor rates and TEP. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one or more labor rate is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of analysis techniques such as those defined by FAR Part 15.404-1. Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the

Government.

3.4 Total Evaluated Price (TEP) Matrix, Section J Attachment 3

The TEP will consist of the cumulative value for all CLINs excluding XX05 (Travel) and XX06

(CDRLs - NSP). The TEP for CLIN 0007 (Post Award Conference) will be evaluated at the

Offeror’s proposed value. The TEP for CLINs: XX01, XX02, XX03, and XX04 will be calculated by applying notional hours to a predetermined mix of labor categories across all fiscal years. The sum of these notional hours applied to the offeror’s proposed labor rates for each labor category will determine TEP. Notional hours will be for Government evaluation purposes only and will NOT be disclosed to offerors. The TEP is for evaluation purposes only;

however, all proposed rates are contractually binding as Not-to-Exceed rates. A no bid or an omitted rate may result in an incomplete Price Volume submission. An omitted rate may result in proposal elimination.

3.4.1 Labor Rates

Labor Rates will be established for pricing all future contractual modifications/Task

Orders. Fully burdened labor rates include direct labor rates, indirect rates, (Overhead, General and Administrative, Fringe Benefits, etc.) and profit.

3.4.2 Unacceptable Technical Subfactors

If at any time during the evaluation the Government finds a technical subfactor to be unacceptable, the evaluation of pricing will reflect, "Not Determined" for

Reasonableness and Balance due to the offeror's price not reflecting an acceptable technical approach. The Government may also decline to consider the offeror's TEP for purposes of competitive range or award if the offeror has any unacceptable rating.

3.4.3 Approval of Accounting System

As portions of this contract are other-than fixed price, the Government will evaluate whether the Offeror has a Government approved accounting system along with all subcontractors who will be issued other-than fixed price work under other-than fixed price CLINs. Failure to possess or obtain government approval of the accounting system may result in disqualification from award. If offerors and/or subcontractors do not currently have Government approval of their accounting system, it may be subject to a

Pre-Award Accounting System Audit.

4 VOLUME III: CONTRACT DOCUMENTATION

The Government will reviewed the completeness and correctness of the offeror’s contract documentation submission as part of Volume III. The offeror’s proposal shall include a signed copy of the Solicitation, Sections A through K, signed amendments to the solicitation (if any), and all other information required in Section L Instruction to Offerors. An incomplete package may exclude the offeror from competition.

4.1 Limitations on Subcontracting

The Government will review subcontracting documentation to ensure it demonstrates how the prime contractor will meet the requirements IAW FAR 52.219-14 Limitations on

Subcontracting.

4.2 Professional Employee Compensation Plan

In accordance with FAR 52.222-46, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Professional

Employee Compensation Plan to ensure that it reflects a sound management approach and understanding of the contract requirements and allows the Offeror to obtain and keep suitably qualified personnel to meet mission objectives. Base labor rates, fringe, and overall benefits will be evaluated and compared against current standards. Lowered compensation for essentially the same professional work may impair the Offeror’s ability to attract and retain competent professional service employees. This may be viewed as evidence of failure to comprehend the complexity of the contract requirements which may lead to rejection of the proposal.

5 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.

5.1 Exceptions to Solicitation Requirements

Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale.