ISC_2_M_comp v1.2.docx

SECTION M

EVALUATION BASIS FOR AWARD

1.0. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD:

1.1. Source Selection Methodology

1.1.1. 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.

1.1.2. The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of Technical/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.

1.1.3. 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/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/business 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.

1.1.4. 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

1.2.1. 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.

1.2.2. 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 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. Competitive Advantage from Use of GFP

The Government will appropriately address any competitive advantage resulting from an offeror's proposed use of GFP.

2.3. 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.

2.4. 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.

2.5. 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.

2.6. Incorporation into the Contract

Processes and approaches proposed by the winning contractor will be incorporated into the contract.

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 Approach/Technical Risk Subfactor One: Program Management Approach Subfactor Two: Technical Expertise Subfactor Three: Transition Approach Subfactor Four: Small Business Participation Subfactor Five: Sample Scenario Factor 2: Cost/Price

3.2. Relative Importance

3.2.1. Factors are listed in descending order of importance, with Factor 1 (Technical Approach/Risk) being most important, and Factor 2 (Cost/Price) last in importance. IAW FAR 15.304(e), Factor 1 (Technical Approach) is significantly more important than cost or price.

3.2.2. Within Factor 1, Subfactors are listed in descending order of importance with Subfactor 1 (Program Management Approach) being most important, Factor 2 (Technical Expertise) next in importance, Subfactor 3 (Transition Approach) next in importance, Subfactor 4 (SB Participation) next in importance, and Subfactor 5 (Sample Scenario) last in importance.

3.3. Technical/Technical Risk Evaluation: Factor 1 - Subfactors 1, 2, 3, and 5

3.3.1. The evaluation of Subfactors 1, 2, 3, and 5 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 Technical Risk Rating. These two ratings have equal impact for the rating of each Subfactor. The separate technical 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 the 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 performance in excess of threshold (minimum) requirements.

Technical Ratings

3.3.4. Technical Risk Rating:

3.3.4.1. 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 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.

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 technical risk rating assigned in the evaluation.

3.3.4.4. Each Subfactor will receive one of the Technical 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 the Factor.

Technical Risk Ratings

3.4. Technical/Technical Risk Evaluation: Factor 1 - Subfactor 4

3.4.1. Subfactor 4 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

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 technically 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 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 does not become part of the contract award.

4.0. VOLUME I: FACTOR 1 - TECHNICAL APPROACH/TECHNICAL RISK

Through the Technical Approach/Technical Risk factor, the Government will assess the Offeror’s understanding of the work specified in the PWSs and the inherent challenges associated with accomplishing contract requirements. The Offeror’s degree of understanding of the requirements will be assessed using the Subfactors listed below. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposed approaches effectively and efficiently fulfil each of the following Subfactors:

4.1. Subfactor 1: Program Management Approach

This Subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s proposed approach for providing a qualified, stable workforce, managing performance of this contract efficiently and proactively, and providing appropriate data and software rights to facilitate the continuation of the ICBM mission beyond the PoP of this contract.

4.1.1. The Subfactor 1 rating will be based on a technical evaluation of the information required by Section L paragraph 4.1., including all subparagraphs, and a technical evaluation of the Offeror’s Professional Employee Compensation Plan required by Section L paragraph 6.3.1 IAW FAR Provision 52.222-46, Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees

4.1.2. The requirement is met when:

4.1.2.1. The Offeror’s program management approach clearly and comprehensively addresses the information required in Section L paragraph 4.1., including all subparagraphs AND

4.1.2.2. The Offeror’s employee compensation plan reflects a sound management approach and understanding of the contract requirements.

4.1.2.2.1. 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.

4.1.2.2.2. 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.

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

4.1.3.1. The Offeror’s program management approach and experience demonstrate the ability to provide a qualified, stable workforce, manage performance of this contract efficiently and proactively, and facilitate continuation of the ICBM mission beyond the PoP of this contract by providing appropriate rights for data and software.

4.1.3.2. The Offeror’s employee compensation plan substantiates the offeror’s ability to provide uninterrupted high-quality work.

4.1.4. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s risk assessment for Subfactor 1. The evaluation will include reviewing the risk assessment for completeness, as well as reviewing each risk and determining the extent to which the corresponding proposed mitigation techniques eliminate or reduce the probability of the risk occurring and/or the severity of the consequences.

4.2. Subfactor 2: Technical Expertise

This Subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s proposed approach (e.g. concepts, plans, practices, internal procedures, innovations, etc.) to provide the technical expertise to satisfy contract requirements.

4.2.1. The requirement is met when the Offeror’s approach clearly and comprehensively addresses the information required by Section L paragraph 4.2., including all subparagraphs.

4.2.2. Strengths and weaknesses will be assessed based the extent to which the Offeror’s approach and experience demonstrate the technical expertise needed to satisfy contract requirements.

4.2.3. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s risk assessment for Subfactor 2. The evaluation will include reviewing the risk assessment for completeness, as well as reviewing each risk and determining the extent to which the corresponding proposed mitigation techniques eliminate or reduce the probability of the risk occurring and/or the severity of the consequences.

4.3. Subfactor 3: Transition

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.

4.3.1. The requirement is met when the Offeror’s transition approach clearly and comprehensively addresses the information required by Section L paragraph 4.3 and subparagraphs, meets the transition requirements in the basic PWS, and demonstrates that the proposed transition strategy can be successfully executed by the Offeror’s proposed completion date.

4.3.2. Strengths and weaknesses will be assessed based on the extent to which the Offeror’s transition approach and experience demonstrate effective and efficient transition of resources and personnel onto this contract, establishment of necessary and viable management processes and structures, the ability to provide full continuity of mission support during the transition period, and the effectiveness of any proposed innovative approaches to minimize cost or streamline the process.

4.3.3. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s risk assessment for Subfactor 3. The evaluation will include reviewing the risk assessment for completeness, as well as reviewing each risk and determining the extent to which the corresponding proposed mitigation techniques eliminate or reduce the probability of the risk occurring and/or the severity of the consequences.

4.4. Subfactor 4: Small Business Participation

This Subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s proposed Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

4.4.1. Subfactor 4 is considered to be acceptable when the offeror’s Small Business Subcontracting Plan meets the requirements of Section L, paragraph #, and clearly demonstrates the course of action to meet the requirements of the small business subcontracting goals as defined Section L, paragraph #.

4.5. Subfactor 5: Sample Scenario

This Subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s responses to the sample scenario. The intent of the sample scenario is to aid the Government in determining the Offeror’s level of understanding of contract requirements by the demonstration of the Offeror’s proposed processes in a real-world scenario.

4.5.1. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s responses to the sample scenario demonstrate familiarity, experience, technical expertise, and competence to accurately, effectively, and efficiently resolve and implement the sample scenario.

4.5.2. The requirement is met when the Offeror’s responses clearly and comprehensively address the information required by the instructions accompanying each stage of the scenario.

4.5.3. Strengths and weaknesses will be assessed based on the extent to which sample scenario responses synthesize the processes proposed by the Offeror in Subfactors 1 and 2, i.e. would the processes proposed in Subfactors 1 and 2 reasonably lead to the proposed solution for the sample scenario.

4.5.4. The evaluation of the responses for the 2 stages of the scenario will result in a single rating.

5.0. VOLUME II: FACTOR 2 - COST/PRICE

The pricing criteria used for evaluation of the Cost/Price Factor will be Price Reasonableness, Realism (on cost 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, certain worksheets from the Labor Rate Matrix (LRM) spreadsheet in Section J, Attachment #4 and the Awardable Task Order (ATO) Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) prices used to calculate the TEP will become contractually binding.

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

5.1. Price Reasonableness

5.1.1. The government will evaluate All CLINs 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.

5.1.2. 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.

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

5.1.4. Unreasonably low rates may result in an offeror’s proposal being removed for consideration of an award.

5.2. Realism

5.2.1. 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.

5.2.2. 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.

5.2.3. 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.

5.2.4. 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).

5.2.5. 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.

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

5.2.5.2. 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.

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

5.3. Balance

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

5.3.2. 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.

5.3.3. Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced unit Task Order or CLIN pricing.

5.3.4. 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.

5.4. ATOs

5.4.1. The Government will perform an assessment of each ATO by evaluating the Offeror’s LRM submission.

5.4.2. The Government will perform an integrated assessment on the LRM and ATOs to determine the realism, reasonableness, and balance of the proposed skill mix.

5.4.3. The Government will evaluate Balance, Realism, and Reasonableness using the information in the following worksheets provided by the Offeror:

· ATO 1-Map-GFS

· ATO 1-Map-KFS-OnB

· ATO 1-Map-KFS-OffB

· ATO 2-Map-GFS

· ATO 2-Map-KFS-OnB

· ATO 2-Map-KFS-OffB

· ATO 3-Map-GFS

· ATO 3-Map-KFS-OnB

· ATO 3-Map-KFS-OffB ATO 4-Map-GFS

· ATO 4-Map-KFS-OnB

· ATO 4-Map-KFS-OffB

· ATO 5-Map-GFS

· ATO 5-Map-KFS-OnB

· ATO 5-Map-KFS-OffB 5.4.4.

5.4.5. 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.

5.4.6. 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.

5.5. Compensation Plan

5.5.1. The Cost/Price evaluation team will evaluate the financial portion of the offeror’s Professional Employee Compensation Plan delivered in Volume III - Contracting Documentation (see Section L paragraph #6.3.1) IAW FAR Provision 52.222-46, Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees

5.5.2. 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.

5.5.3. 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.

6.0. VOLUME III – CONTRACT DOCUMENTATION

6.1. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposal to ensure they have submitted all required documentation identified in Section L paragraph #6.1.7. An incomplete or incorrect submission may result in a rejection of the proposal.