ISC_2_M_Factor 1 v2.2.docx

1.0 FACTOR 1: MANAGEMENT APPROACH/RISK (Technical Factor)

The term “Technical” as used herein and throughout the document, refers to non-cost Factors and Subfactors other than Past Performance.

1.1. The Management Approach/Risk Factor assesses the Offeror’s approach to effectively and efficiently accomplish the work specified in the Performance Work Statements (PWSs), thereby demonstrating understanding of contract requirements. Through this factor, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s understanding of the work specified in the PWSs and the inherent challenges associated with accomplishing the objectives of this contract. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposed approach effectively and efficiently accomplishes the work specified in the PWSs. The Offeror’s degree of understanding of the requirements will be assessed in all Management Approach/Risk Subfactors.

1.2. The evaluation of Subfactors 1-4 will be 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.

1.3. Strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies are defined IAW DoD Source Selection Procedures and FAR 15.001:

· 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.

1.4. Technical Rating:

1.4.1. The technical rating evaluates the quality of the Offeror’s approach for meeting the Government’s requirement.

1.4.2. Each Subfactor will receive one of the color/adjectival ratings described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures excerpted below, which (modify if any Technical subfactor will be evaluated on an “acceptable/unacceptable” basis.) focuses on strengths and deficiencies of the Offeror's proposal. The color/adjectival rating depicts how well the Offeror’s proposal meets each Subfactor’s requirements.

1.4.3. Subfactor ratings will not be rolled up into an overall color rating for the Factor.

1.4.4. 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

1.5. Technical Risk Rating:

1.5.1. 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, and/or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

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

1.5.3. Each Subfactor will receive one of the Technical Risk ratings described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, excerpted below.

1.5.4. Subfactor risk ratings will not be rolled up into an overall risk rating for the Factor.

1.5.5. 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.

Technical Risk Ratings

Proposals will be evaluated against the following Subfactors:

2.0 SUBFACTOR 1: PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT APPROACH

2.1. This Subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s proposed approach for providing a qualified, stable workforce to perform the requirements of the PWSs for the duration of this contract.

2.2. This Subfactor will receive one of the ratings defined in paragraphs 1.4 and 1.5 above.

2.3. The requirement is met when the Offeror’s personnel management approach clearly and comprehensively addresses the information required by Section L.

2.4. Strengths and weaknesses will be assessed based the extent to which the Offeror’s personnel management approach demonstrates the ability to provide a qualified, stable workforce for the duration of this contract.

2.5. The Subfactor evaluation includes an evaluation of the Offeror’s Professional Employee Compensation plan as required by FAR Provision 52.222-46, Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees.

2.6. Risk Assessment

2.6.1. 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.

2.6.2. The evaluation of the Offeror’s risk assessment is not the same as the Subfactor Risk Rating.

3.0 SUBFACTOR 2: PROGRAM MANAGEMENT APPROACH

3.1. This Subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s proposed approach (e.g. concepts, plans, practices, internal procedures, innovations, etc.) to efficiently and proactively manage performance of this contract.

3.2. This Subfactor will receive one of the ratings defined in paragraphs 1.4 and 1.5 above.

3.3. The requirement is met when the Offeror’s program management approach clearly and comprehensively addresses the information required by Section L.

3.4. Strengths and weaknesses will be assessed based the extent to which the Offeror’s program management approach demonstrates the ability to effectively provide high quality services and products in a timely manner.

3.5. Risk Assessment

3.5.1. 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.

3.5.2. The evaluation of the Offeror’s risk assessment is not the same as the Subfactor Risk Rating.

4.0 SUBFACTOR 3: SAMPLE SCENARIO

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

4.2. 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.

4.3. 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.

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

5.0 SUBFACTOR 4: TRANSITION

This Subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s proposed approach for transition of responsibility with minimal program impact and disruption.

5.1. Phase-in

5.1.1. The Phase-in evaluation assesses the Offeror’s ability to seamlessly transition the workload from ISC 1.0 with minimal impact and disruption, ensuring complete requirements coverage throughout the transition.

5.1.2. The requirement is met when the Offeror’s Phase-in approach clearly and comprehensively addresses the information required by Section L, 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.

5.1.3. Strengths and weaknesses will be assessed based on the extent to which the Offeror’s transition approach demonstrates 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 Phase-in period, and the effectiveness of any proposed innovative approaches to minimize cost or streamline the process.

5.2. Enabling of Future Requirements

5.2.1. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s strategy for enabling the Government to maintain full and open competition on future contracting actions, minimize life-cycle costs, and perform sustainment and acquisition for ICBMs.

5.2.2. The requirement is met when tables # through # of the Government Rights in Data and Software (GRIDS) for each awardable task order (Section J, Attachments #-#), are filled out completely and correctly IAW the instructions in the GRIDS document and IAW DFARS clauses 252.227-7013, 252.227-7014, 252.227-7015, and 252.227-7017.

5.2.3. Strengths and weaknesses will be assessed based on the extent to which the proposed GRIDS strategy and any proposed limitations on data or software enable the Government to maintain full and open competition on future contracting actions, minimize life-cycle costs, and perform sustainment and acquisition for ICBMs.

5.3. Risk Assessment

5.3.1. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s risk assessment for Subfactor 4. 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.

5.3.2. The evaluation of the Offeror’s risk assessment is not the same as the Subfactor Risk Rating.

Section M