Attachment 24 - Section M.pdf

ISC 2.0 Section M, 30 September 2020

SECTION M

EVALUATION BASIS FOR AWARD

1.0. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD:

1.1. Source Selection Methodology

This is a competitive, Trade-Off Source Selection conducted in accordance with (IAW) Federal

Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15, Contracting by Negotiation, as supplemented by the Defense

Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), the Air Force Federal Acquisition

Regulation Supplement (AFFARS), DoD Source Selection Procedures dated 1 April 2016, and

Air Force Mandatory Procedures 5315.3. These regulations are available electronically at https://www.acquisition.gov/content/part-15-contracting-negotiation#i1108639.

The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of

Technical Approach/Technical Risk and Cost/Price. The contract may be awarded to the Offeror who is deemed responsible IAW 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.

In using a Trade-Off 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 requirements affordably in a way that will be advantageous to the Government. Tradeoffs may be made between Technical Approach/Technical Risk and Cost/Price. This may result in 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 approach of the higher priced Offeror outweighs the cost difference, and therefore represents the best value to the Government. The SSA will base the Source Selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all Source Selection criteria in the solicitation.

A detailed and complete analysis of each Offeror’s proposal will be performed. While the

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

1.2. Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions

By submission of an offer, the Offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation Factors or Subfactors.

Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation or meet a technical requirement may result in a proposal being determined to be unawardable. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions unacceptable.

2.0. GENERAL INFORMATION

2.1. Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award one (1) contract as a result of this solicitation; 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. Offerors are reminded that the

Government will only evaluate one proposal from each Offeror.

2.2. Exchanges With Offerors After Receipt of Proposals

Any exchanges with Offerors after receipt of proposals will be conducted IAW FAR 15.306, Exchanges with Offerors after Receipt of Proposals.

2.2.1. Discussions

The Government intends to award without discussions, therefore, each initial offer should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. However, the

Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary.

If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the

Government to hold discussions, a Competitive Range will be established. The Source

Selection decision will then be based on the Final Proposal Revisions (FPRs) of the

Offerors remaining in the Competitive Range at the time discussions are closed. If the

Offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as acceptable 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 may be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

2.2.2. Correction Potential

Throughout the evaluation, the Government will consider the "correction potential" of any deficiency. The judgment of such "correction potential" is within the sole discretion of the

Government. If an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal does not meet the Government’s requirements and is not considered correctable, the Offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range.

2.3. Incorporation into the Contract

The winning proposal will be incorporated into the resulting contract by reference.

3.0. EVALUATION CRITERIA

3.1. Factors and Subfactors

Award will be made to the Offeror proposing the most advantageous solution to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation Factors and Subfactors described below.

The following evaluation Factors and Subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal.

Factor 1: Technical Capability

Subfactor 1: Test Anomaly Root Cause

Subfactor 2: Systems Engineering

Subfactor 3: Digital Engineering

Factor 2: Mission Capability

Subfactor 1: Workforce Management

Subfactor 2: Operational Capability

Subfactor 3: Transition Approach

Subfactor 4: Small Business Participation

Factor 3: Cost/Price

3.2. Relative Importance

3.2.1. Factors are listed in descending order of importance, with Factor 1, Technical

Capability, being the most important, Factor 2, Mission Capability, next in importance, and Factor 3, Cost/Price, last in importance. IAW FAR 15.304(e), all evaluation factors other than Cost/Price, when combined are significantly more important than cost or price.

3.2.2. Within Factor 1, Subfactors are approximately equal in importance.

3.2.3. Within Factor 2, Subfactor order of importance is as follows:

3.2.3.1. Subfactors 1 - 3 are “Trade-Off” type Subfactors (see paragraph 3.3) and are listed in descending order of importance.

3.2.3.2. Subfactor 4, Small Business Participation, is an “Acceptable/

Unacceptable” type Subfactor (see paragraph 3.4). A rating of

“Unacceptable” on Subfactor 4 renders the entire proposal unacceptable, and therefore unawardable.

3.3. “Technical/Risk” Evaluation: Factor 1 (all Subfactors) and Factor 2 (Subfactors 1-3)

3.3.1. The evaluation of Factor 1 (all Subfactors) and Factor 2 (Subfactors 1-3) will be conducted IAW paragraph 3.1.2.1 of the DoD Source Selection Procedures, “Methodology 1: Separate Technical/Risk Rating Process”. This provides for two distinct but related assessments: the Technical Rating and the Risk Rating. These two ratings have equal impact for the rating of each Subfactor. The separate Risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with proposal strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies.

3.3.2. Strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies are defined IAW

DoD Source Selection Procedures and FAR 15.001, Definitions:

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 that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful 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.

3.3.3. Technical Rating:

3.3.3.1. The Technical Rating evaluates the quality of the Offeror’s approach for meeting the Government’s requirement.

3.3.3.2. Each Subfactor will receive one of the color/adjectival ratings described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures excerpted below, which focuses on strengths and understanding of the Offeror's proposal. The color/adjectival rating depicts how well the Offeror’s proposal meets each Subfactor’s requirements.

3.3.3.3. Subfactor ratings will not be rolled up into an overall rating for either

Factor.

3.3.3.4. In arriving at a best value decision, the Government reserves the right to give evaluation credit/positive consideration (i.e. assign a strength) for 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.

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.

3.3.4. Risk Rating:

3.3.4.1. 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 the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

3.3.4.2. The evaluation will address the Source Selection Team’s identification of any weaknesses or significant weaknesses, as well as the Offeror’s identified risks, proposed mitigation, and why the proposed mitigation is or is not manageable (if applicable).

3.3.4.3. The Government will not be bound by the Offeror’s proposed acceptable level of risk mitigation or proposed risk rating determination. The

Government will make the final determination of the risk rating assigned in the evaluation.

3.3.4.4. Each Subfactor will receive one of the Risk ratings described in the DoD

Source Selection Procedures, excerpted below.

3.3.4.5. Subfactor risk ratings will not be rolled up into an overall risk rating for either Factor.

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.

3.4. “Technical/Risk” Evaluation: Factor 2 - Subfactor 4 (Small Business Participation)

3.4.1. Subfactor 4 of Factor 2 will be evaluated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis, IAW paragraph 3.1.4.1.1 of the DoD Source Selection Procedures.

3.4.2. Subfactor 4 will receive one of the ratings described in the DoD Source Selection

Procedures excerpted below:

Small Business Ratings

Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

3.4.3. A rating of “Unacceptable” on this Subfactor will render the entire proposal unacceptable and, therefore, unawardable. Only those proposals determined to be

Acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. However, the Offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussions.

3.5. Cost/Price Evaluation

3.5.1. The pricing criteria used for evaluation of the Cost/Price Factor will be Price

Reasonableness, Realism (on cost-type Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs)), Balance, and Total Evaluated Price (TEP).

3.5.2. The TEP will be a consideration in the best value tradeoff award decision. The TEP will be computed and provided to the Source Selection Authority for award purposes only and will not become part of the contract award.

4.0. VOLUME I: FACTOR 1 - TECHNICAL CAPABILITY

Through the Technical Capability Factor, the Government will assess the Offeror’s familiarity, corporate experience, and technical expertise in accurately, effectively, and efficiently understanding and performing selected services required by the ISC 2.0 Basic and Awardable

Task Order (ATO) Performance Work Statements (PWs). This will be assessed using the

Subfactors listed below:

4.1. Subfactor 1: Test Anomaly Root Cause

4.1.1. TBA

4.2. Subfactor 2: Systems Engineering

4.2.1. TBA

4.3. Subfactor 3: Digital Engineering

4.3.1. TBA

5.0. VOLUME II: FACTOR 2 - MISSION CAPABILITY

Through the Mission Capability Factor, the Government will assess the Offeror’s understanding of the work specified in the Performance Work Statements (PWSs) and the associated inherent challenges. The Offeror’s degree of understanding will be assessed using the Subfactors listed below. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposed approaches effectively and efficiently fulfill each of the following Subfactors:

5.1. Subfactor 1: Workforce Management

This Subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s capability to provide, retain, and manage a qualified workforce to satisfy the ATOs’ requirements. (Basic PWS 4.0)

5.1.1. The requirement is met when the Offeror’s submission for SF 1:

5.1.1.1. Provides the information required by Section L paragraph 5.1.,

5.1.1.2. Demonstrates the ability to successfully recruit, hire, manage, and retain a qualified workforce IAW PWS requirements, AND

5.1.1.3. Includes a Professional Employee Compensation Plan meeting the requirements of FAR 52.222-46, Evaluation of Compensation for

Professional Employees.

5.1.1.3.1. The Professional Employee Compensation Plan and supporting information will be evaluated per FAR 52.222-46 to assure it reflects a sound management approach and understanding of the contract requirements. Professional compensation that is unrealistically low or not in reasonable relationship to the various job categories, since it may impair the Contractor’s ability to attract and retain competent professional service employees, may be viewed as evidence of failure to comprehend the complexity of the contract requirements.

5.1.1.3.2. The professional compensation proposed will be considered in terms of its impact upon recruiting and retention, its realism, and its consistency with a total plan for compensation by comparing:

Proposed direct labor rates to the minimum weekly rate as required in 29 CFR 541

Proposed direct labor rates to current market rates

Fringe benefit rate to the current market

5.1.2. Strengths and weaknesses will be assessed based on the extent to which:

5.1.2.1. The Offeror’s approaches and experience demonstrate greater capability to successfully recruit, hire, manage, and retain a qualified workforce

5.1.2.2. The Offeror’s Professional Employee Compensation Plan substantiates, through the comparisons listed in paragraph 5.1.1.3.2. above, the Offeror’s capability of providing uninterrupted, high-quality work

5.1.2.3. The Offeror’s proposal establishes that the processes used are repeatable and proven

5.1.2.4. The Offeror’s proposed approaches corroborate a functional overall methodology

5.2. Subfactor 2: Operational Capability

This Subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s operational capability for providing high-quality services and products as delineated in the PWSs. (Basic PWS 2.0, 3.4, 4.2, 6.3, and 6.4.)

5.2.1. The requirement is met when the Offeror’s submission for SF 2:

5.2.1.1. Provides the information required by Section L paragraph 5.2.,

5.2.1.2. Provides appropriate management and governance to successfully support the requirements in the Basic and ATO PWSs

5.2.1.3. Demonstrates the ability to efficiently and effectively conduct operations on ISC 2.0, AND

5.2.1.4. Demonstrates that the proposed approaches and strategies complement each other and work together to ensure a high level of quality and customer satisfaction

5.2.2. Strengths and weaknesses will be assessed based on the extent to which:

5.2.2.1. The Offeror’s approaches and experience demonstrate greater capability to successfully provide timely, high quality services and products

5.2.2.2. The Offeror’s Corporate Structure and Operational Strategy complement each other and work together to provide greater satisfaction/benefit to the

Government

5.2.2.3. The Offeror’s proposal establishes that the processes used are repeatable and proven

5.2.2.4. The Offeror’s proposed approaches corroborate a functional overall methodology

5.3. Subfactor 3: Transition Approach (Basic PWS 5.0)

This Subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s proposed approach for transitioning the workload from

ISC 1.0 with minimal program impact and disruption while ensuring complete requirements coverage throughout the transition period.

5.3.1. The requirement is met when the Offeror’s submission for SF 3:

5.3.1.1. Provides the information required by Section L paragraph 5.3.,

5.3.1.2. Provides sufficient coverage of the required support for the Government programs’ major events planned during the transition period (listed in

Section L paragraph 5.3.4), AND

5.3.1.3. Demonstrates that the proposed transition strategy can be successfully executed by the Offeror’s proposed completion date (NTE 90 calendar days from Government approval of CDRL A132, Transition Plan).

5.3.2. Strengths and weaknesses will be assessed based on the extent to which:

5.3.2.1. The Offeror’s proposed transition approach and evidence of experience demonstrate greater capability to effectively, efficiently transition workload, and the ability to provide full continuity of mission support throughout the transition period

5.3.2.2. The Offeror’s strategy provides full support for the Government programs’ major events planned during the transition period

5.3.2.3. The Offeror’s proposal establishes that the processes used are repeatable and proven

5.3.2.4. The Offeror’s proposed approaches corroborate a functional overall methodology

5.4. Subfactor 4: Small Business (SB) Participation

This Subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s proposed SB participation approach. The SB participation submission is not to be confused with the “Small Business Subcontracting Plan” required in the

Contract Documentation Volume (see Section L paragraph 7.5.10). All offerors will be evaluated on their SB participation approach.

5.4.1. The evaluation of SB participation will include the extent to which such firms are specifically identified in proposals and extent of commitment to use such firms

5.4.2. The SB Participation Subfactor is considered to be acceptable when the Offeror’s

SB participation approach clearly demonstrates the course of action to meet the SB participation requirements as defined in H-003, and corroborates a functional overall methodology.

6.0. VOLUME III: FACTOR 3 - COST/PRICE

The pricing criteria used for evaluation of the Cost/Price Factor will be Price Reasonableness, Realism (on cost-type CLIN portions of the volume as detailed below), Balance, and Total

Evaluated Price (TEP).

The TEP will be a consideration in the best value tradeoff 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 award. However, data from the Labor Rate Matrix (LRM) spreadsheet in Section J, Attachment #8 and the Awardable Task Order (ATO) CLIN prices used to calculate the TEP will become contractually binding, as detailed below.

Evaluation of options does not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

6.1. Price Reasonableness

6.1.1. The Government will evaluate all LRM worksheets associated with each ATO for price reasonableness IAW the techniques described in FAR 15.404-1, Proposal

Analysis Techniques. Generally adequate price competition is sufficient to satisfy the requirement for ensuring price reasonableness.

6.1.2. 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.

6.1.3. If adequate price competition is not obtained or if price reasonableness cannot be determined, additional information will be required to support the proposed price.

6.2. Realism

6.2.1. The Government will evaluate the realism of each Offeror’s proposed labor rates for all Cost CLINs and costs associated with the ATO Basis of Estimates (BOEs).

Proposal Analysis Techniques found in FAR 15.404-1 will be utilized.

6.2.2. Costs shall be reflective of a clear understanding of the requirements and consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the Offeror’s technical proposal.

6.2.3. Evaluation will include assessment of the extent to which proposed labor rate costs are in line with historical data, market rates, Forward Price Rate Agreements

(FPRAs)/Forward Price Rate Recommendations (FPRRs), etc., and the extent to which ATO costs are sufficient for the work to be performed.

6.2.4. If the Government evaluates the Offeror’s probable cost as different from its proposed cost, the Government reserves the right to utilize the probable cost for purposes of best value IAW FAR 15.404-1(d)(2).

6.2.5. It is anticipated that the same burdened base rates (less profit/fee) for all cost-type rates will be identical to the fixed price-type rates proposed in the “LRM-

FFPRates” worksheet.

6.2.5.1. This is anticipated to assist the realism evaluation for these labor rates.

6.2.5.2. If this is not the case or the Government determines it needs further information to support realism the Government reserves the right to request further information.

6.2.6. Offeror’s are reminded that unrealistically low rates may result in an Offeror’s proposal being removed for consideration of an award.

6.3. Balance

6.3.1. The Government will evaluate the balance of each Offeror’s proposed labor rates and pricing for the ATOs.

6.3.2. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one or more line items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of analysis techniques such as those defined by FAR Part 15.404-1.

6.3.3. Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced unit

Task Order or CLIN pricing.

6.3.4. Offers determined by the Government to be unbalanced may be rejected if the lack of balance is determined by the Government to pose an unacceptable risk.

6.4. ATOs

6.4.1. The Government will perform an assessment of each ATO by evaluating the

Offeror’s Labor Category Matching Database, LRM, and BOE submission.

6.4.2. The Government will perform an integrated assessment on the Labor Category

Matching Database, LRM, and BOEs to evaluate the proposed skill mix.

6.4.3. ATOs may be awarded with the basic contract award and the Offeror will be held to the prices submitted. However, the Government reserves the right to not award any or award one or more of these ATOs.

6.4.4. The Government also reserves the right to adjust ATO requirements (i.e. FTE/CME labor categories and positions) after evaluation but prior to contract award to address any changes in requirements from the time proposals were submitted. These adjustments would not be used as part of evaluations and would be coordinated with the awardee prior to contract award.

6.5. TEP

6.5.1. The TEP will be calculated as follows:

TEP = [(ATO 1 - $Total Dollar) x (multiplier) + (ATO 2 - $Total Dollar) x (multiplier) +

(ATO 3 - $Total Dollar) x (multiplier) + (ATO 4 - $Total Dollar) x (multiplier) +

(ATO 5 - $Total Dollar) x (multiplier)]

6.5.2. The Government will use the LRM to compute the TEP. All elements above will include the corresponding proposed profit/fee.

6.5.3. The Government will apply pre-determined multipliers to each of the five (5)

ATOs. These multipliers will be established by the Government prior to RFP release and applied the same for all Offerors. These multipliers will not be disclosed to the Offerors.

6.6. Costs Associated with Transition

6.6.1. All costs associated with transition shall not be a separately priced CLIN.

6.7. Labor Category Mapping

6.7.1. The Government will evaluate “Attachment 9-Labor Category Mapping” provided by the Offeror, to ensure all Offeror and major Subcontractor labor categories are mapped to the Government’s labor categories. This will be used to assist in understanding and evaluating the Offeror’s proposed skill mix.

7.0. VOLUME III – CONTRACT DOCUMENTATION

7.1. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal to ensure they have submitted all required documentation identified in Section L paragraph 7.0. An incomplete or incorrect submission may result in a rejection of the proposal.

7.2. Government Rights in Data and Software (GRIDS)

7.2.1. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s completed GRIDS in Section J, Attachment #7 to ensure all sections are completed correctly.