SectionMAmendment0006.pdf

SECTION M

(Amendment 0006)

Evaluation Factors for Award

M-I - Solicitation Provisions Incorporated by Reference

NOTICE: Pursuant to FAR 52.252-1, "SOLICITATION PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE," the following provisions are incorporated herein by reference:

None.

M-II - Solicitation Provisions in Full Text

None.

(End of provision)

SOURCE SELECTION

1. AWARDS

1.1. BASIS FOR AWARDS

By submission of its offer, the offeror agrees to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors and subfactors. This is a performance price trade off source selection in which the offerors’ past performance is significantly more important than price. Past Performance, Technical Capability and Cost/Price will be evaluated by independent teams working for the most part in parallel, with the exception that the past performance review will start first with the early submission of volume V of the proposal. The SSA will do an integrated best value assessment of the final competitive range. The Government reserves the right to award a contract to other than the lowest priced offeror if the lowest priced offeror is judged to have a performance confidence assessment of “Significant Confidence” or lower. In that event, the Source Selection Authority shall make an integrated assessment best value award decision.

1.1.1. Offerors shall meet all requirements in order to receive acceptable ratings for the evaluation criteria for the technical proposal. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. Initially, the Government technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals on a pass/fail basis, assigning ratings of ACCEPTABLE, REASONABLY SUSCEPTIBLE OF BEING MADE ACCEPTABLE, or UNACCEPTABLE. At its discretion, the Government may enter into discussions to see if proposals can be made awardable (acceptable). See paragraph 3 for details on the evaluation of the technical proposal.

1.1.2. Price evaluation will be completed in accordance with Paragraph 4 below. The

Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by developing a Total Evaluated Price (TEP). See the Instruction tab in the Excel TEP Worksheet, Attachment 14.

1.1.3. Past Performance will be rated by a confidence assessment based on a subjective, integrated assessment of the recency, relevancy, and quality of past performance. Offerors will be ranked according to the Government’s confidence assessment rating in accordance with Table 3 below. See paragraph 6 for more on the performance evaluation.

1.1.4. While the Government source selection evaluation team (SSET) and the Source Selection Authority (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.

1.1.5. The Government intends to award the contracts with discussions, but reserves the right to award without discussions if determined to be in the best interest of the Government.

Offerors are advised to give an offer suitable for an award decision in the initial proposal.

The Government does not intend to use non-Government advisors or evaluators in this source selection. See paragraph 1.2 below for more on awards.

1.2. CONTRACT AWARDS

1.2.1. All proposals will be initially evaluated. Awards will be made from the resultant competitive range in accordance with the intention of making one full and open award and two awards to small businesses. However, the Government reserves the right to award more or less total contracts or a different large/small business mix if the SSA determines it is in the Government's best interest. The Government will consider the expected volume of work, available funding, the need to sustain adequate competition and the availability of best-value proposals following completion of evaluations of the proposals received. The government reserves the right not to make an award under those reserved for small business based on the quality of proposals received. At a minimum a small business’s proposal must have an acceptable technical proposal, a reasonable price and a satisfactory confidence rating to be considered for award. If there are at least two awards made and two proposals from small businesses that meet the above minimums then two awards will be made to small businesses.

1.2.2. The small business offerors will be considered for both the awards reserved for small business and the full and open award. Reserved awards, if there are any will be made first.

Next the full and open award winner will be selected from the remaining offerors. That is, an offeror cannot win both a reserved award and a full and open award.

EVALUATION CRITERIA

2. VOLUME I – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2.1. The Executive Summary will not be evaluated as a separate Factor. The summary material presented here does NOT meet any requirements for other volumes of the proposal.

3. VOLUME II - TECHNICAL CAPABILITY FACTOR

3.1. Technical capability will be evaluated in accordance with the requirements stated below. The offeror’s proposal must convey to the Government that the offeror is capable; possesses adequate technical expertise and experience; possesses sufficient resources; and is able to plan, organize, and use those resources in a coordinated and timely fashion to meet the needs of the Government.

3.2. Volume II, Technical Capability, will be evaluated and given one of the following ratings:

3.2.1. Acceptable. Meets all specified technical capability requirements necessary for acceptable contract performance.

3.2.2. Reasonably susceptible of being made acceptable. There are omissions and/or weaknesses identified which require clarifications or discussions with the offeror. There is a good probability of meeting minimum requirements after clarifications or discussions, without making major changes to the proposal. If a proposal receives this rating after technical evaluation, the Government reserves the right to eliminate the offeror from the competitive range at this phase of the evaluation.

3.2.3. Unacceptable. Fails to meet one or more specified technical capability requirements and would require major revisions to the proposal. Proposals with an unacceptable rating are considered not awardable. If a proposal receives this rating after technical evaluation, the Government reserves the right to eliminate the offeror from the competitive range at this phase of the evaluation.

3.3. Subfactors

3.3.1. Subfactor 1: Program Management

3.3.1.1. Organizational Structure

3.3.1.1.1. The offeror’s proposed organizational plan demonstrates:

(a) Clear and effective lines of authority and communication.

(b) Effective areas of responsibility for contractor personnel.

(c) Integration of any teaming partners/subcontractor personnel with the prime contractor’s management structure.

3.3.1.2. Business Approach

3.3.1.2.1. The offeror’s proposal demonstrates a sound, clear, and feasible strategy that addresses:

(a) How the offeror plans to meet performance-based objectives within proper timeframes.

(b) How contractor management staff plans to adapt to differing Task Order requirements for the two types of services in the PWS.

(c) Capability to effectively track, control, and report task order cost, schedule, and performance down to the Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) level.

(d) A transition plan that effectively addresses strategies to minimize disruption during task order transition periods while maintaining cost and schedule.

3.3.1.3. Supervision of Personnel

3.3.1.3.1. The Government will evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of the offeror’s proposed method of providing the necessary day-to-day supervision of employees. The following will be considered;

(a) Maintenance of employee health, safety, education and training qualifications, attendance records, and absenteeism.

(b) Supervision to ensure employees are engaged in tasks identified in the task order.

(c) Methods of assigning, reassigning, transferring, or terminating employees who are not meeting the requirements of the contract within the timeframes specified in the Performance-Based Work Statement (PWS).

3.3.1.4. Quality Assurance and Productivity Measurements

3.3.1.4.1. The offeror’s proposal demonstrates understanding, experience, and implementation of an effective plan to apply management controls with metrics and reporting to customers on:

(a) Personnel availability

(b) Productivity, attainment of performance levels, and training

(c) Meeting Government (DoD, AF) compliance standards/processes

(d) Handling problems and/or corrective action plans by the Contractor

Management Staff.

3.3.2. Subfactor 2 –Resource Management Program

3.3.2.1. Recruit

3.3.2.1.1. The Government will evaluate the effectiveness and feasibility of offeror’s (Prime, teaming partners, subcontractors) geographic recruiting reach demonstrating a world wide recruiting network and a strong process involving active steps for recruitment (i.e. an ability to find and recruit skilled workers from more than just the local area). This includes:

(a) The process for obtaining qualified personnel possessing current skills, experience, and certifications within required timeframes to include surges/rapid response for the job classifications listed in Section J, Attachments 4 and 5.

(b) The process for obtaining adequate numbers of employees with security clearances.

(c) The offeror’s experience with recruiting.

3.3.2.2. Maintenance of a Skilled Work Force.

3.3.2.2.1. The Government will evaluate whether the offeror has a feasible and effective method to retain the necessary personnel to staff task orders and meet requirements of cost, schedule and performance. This includes:

(a) Employment agreements, or contracts to retain or have available workers in job classifications you consider hard to fill.

(b) How you will maintain employee training records.

(c) Experience maintaining a skilled work force.

3.3.3 Subfactor 3 – Contractor Statement of Work (CSOW)

3.3.3.1. Offerors are required to provide an effective Contractor Statement of Work that provides, at a minimum, all requirements from the PWS and how the offeror will meet those requirements as well as any major aspects of the technical proposal. The Government will evaluate whether the contractor’s CSOW shows an understanding of the requirement, procedures and timelines for completion, methodology to ensure compliance, as well as the accuracy and clarity of format and content. The Government must find the CSOW acceptable in order to give an acceptable rating to the Technical Capability factor. Therefore to be awardable, an offeror’s proposal must have an acceptable CSOW. The Government reserves the right to evaluate the CSOW through sampling or by line by line review at its discretion.

4. VOLUME III – PRICE FACTOR

4.1. The pricing criteria used for evaluation are (1) completeness; (2) price reasonableness of the proposed Labor Hour Rates; and (3) Total Evaluated Price (TEP) methodology.

4.1.1. Completeness – The Government will review the Pricing submissions for completeness and compliance with Section L of the RFP. Incomplete price submissions will NOT be evaluated and the proposal may be eliminated from the competition.

4.1.2. Price Reasonableness – A price reasonableness review of the proposed NTE Labor Hour

Rates will be conducted for offerors that submitted a complete, readable electronic spreadsheet file and are assigned an ACCEPTABLE or REASONABLY SUSCEPTIBLE OF BEING MADE ACCEPTABLE” technical rating (per Paragraph 2.2). For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay when consideration is given to prices in the market. Price reasonableness is established through adequate price competition as well as through additional price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404.

4.1.3. Total Evaluated Price (TEP) – The TEP is for evaluation purposes only and will be a consideration in the best value award decision. The proposal will be evaluated using the proposed NTE Hourly Labor Rates, an overtime multiplier, and shift percentages applied against the Government’s notional hours (See TEP Worksheet Attachment 14 for details).

Some CLINs will not be included in the TEP (for example the CRNF CLINs), see Part 1 –

THE SCHEDULE SECTION B SUPPLIES OR SERVICES.

4.1.4. Price Evaluation. The government shall rank all TECHNICALLY ACCEPTABLE and

REASONABLY SUSCEPTIBLE OF BEING MADE ACCEPTABLE offers by TEP. When applicable, the price evaluation adjustment for HUBZone small business concerns will be applied in accordance with FAR 52.219-4, Notice of Price Evaluation Preference for HUBZone Small Business Concerns, to arrive at an evaluated price. The price evaluation will verify the completeness, price reasonableness, and affordability of the proposed TEP.

5. VOLUME IV - CONTRACT DOCUMENTATION

5.1. This volume will be reviewed for completion. The offeror’s proposal shall include the required signatures, dates and certifications as specified in Section L.

5.2. The offeror self-certifies their Small Business Administration (SBA) status in Section K by completing the FAR provision statements. Representations and certifications will also be checked via the ORCA website (https://orca.bpn.gov/). The percentage of work provided in the documentation shall match the percentage proposed in Section J, Attachment 6, Team List. If the evaluation team has reason to question the SBA status of an offeror, the SBA officials will investigate and provide appropriate determination.

5.3. 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, subfactors to be eligible for award. Failure to comply with any terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being removed from consideration for award. Any exceptions to the solicitation’s terms and conditions must be fully explained and identified as specified in Section L, paragraph 6.2.

5.4. Large business offerors are required to provide a Small Business and Small Disadvantaged

Business Subcontracting Plan which will be reviewed for adequacy in meeting Small Business participation goals. In addition, the evaluation will include the past performance of offerors in complying with subcontracting plan goals for small disadvantaged business (SDB) https://orca.bpn.gov/ concerns (see subpart 19.7), monetary targets for SDB participation (see 19.1202), and notifications submitted under 19.1202-4(b).

5.5. The teaming arrangement agreement and the joint venture agreement proposed by the offeror will be reviewed for adequacy in meeting the Limitation in Subcontracting clause.

6. VOLUME V - PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR

6.1. Under the Past Performance factor, the Past Performance Confidence Assessment represents the evaluation of an offeror’s present and past work record to assess the Government’s confidence in the offeror’s ability to successfully perform as proposed. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s demonstrated record of performance of services that meets users’ needs, including cost and schedule. The relevancy and recency of the information and general trends in the offeror’s performance will be considered. Recency is satisfied by performance less than 5 years old. The Government will not consider performance on contracts where performance was concluded more than five years prior to solicitation issue date or newly awarded contracts that do not have performance history.

NOTE: The contract/task order in its entirety may be evaluated for past performance if any part of the contract performance falls within the five-year timeframe, to include task orders and trends.

6.2. The Past Performance evaluation will be accomplished by reviewing aspects of an offeror’s recent and relevant past performance, focusing on and targeting performance relevant to the Program Management (subfactor 1) and Resource Management (subfactor 2) Technical Capability subfactors and the Cost/Price factor. A relevancy determination of the offeror’s past performance (including joint ventures, subcontractors and/or teaming partners) will be made.

This information is required of the offeror and subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners. Each subcontractor and/or teaming partner’s past performance will be considered of equal importance to the prime’s past performance for both relevancy and performance depending on the roles played on this contract.

6.2.1. In determining relevancy, the Government will consider the role and significance of the effort accomplished by the prime, subcontractor, and/or teaming partner on previous/current contracts compared to the effort to be performed on the proposed contract. For example, past performance for a subcontractor and/or teaming partner will only be considered if that same subcontractor and/or teaming partner is to perform a similar function on the proposed effort. Higher relevancy will be assessed for contracts most similar in magnitude and complexity to the current acquisition requirements and will have a corresponding impact on the offeror’s overall performance confidence assessment rating.

Relevancy of contracts will be evaluated individually. The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of relevancy.

6.2.2. The following relevancy definitions will be used to determine relevancy:

• Very Relevant – Past performance involves similar types of effort, complexities and scope (i.e. Organization Structure, Business Approach, Supervision of Personnel, Quality Assurance/Productivity Measurements, Recruitment, and Maintenance of Skilled Workers), and shall essentially involve the same effort, magnitude, and complexity that this solicitation requires.

• Relevant – Past performance involves similar types of effort, complexities and scope (i.e. Organization Structure, Business Approach, Supervision of Personnel, Quality Assurance/Productivity Measurements, Recruitment, and Maintenance of Skilled

Workers), which involved much of the same effort, magnitude, and complexity that this solicitation requires.

• Somewhat Relevant – Past performance involves similar types of effort, complexities and scope (i.e. Organization Structure, Business Approach, Supervision of Personnel, Quality Assurance/Productivity Measurements, Recruitment, and Maintenance of Skilled Workers), which involved some of the same effort, magnitude, and complexity that this solicitation requires.

• Not Relevant – No experience involving similar types of effort, complexities and scope (i.e. Organization Structure, Business Approach, Supervision of Personnel, Quality Assurance/Productivity Measurements, Recruitment, and Maintenance of Skilled Workers) that this solicitation requires.

Note: Past performance submissions for any team member will be evaluated for relevancy based on how similar work on the prior contract is to that team member on this particular acquisition.

6.2.3. The Government evaluation team—the Performance Confidence Assessment Group (PCAG)—will conduct an in-depth review and evaluation of all performance data obtained to determine how closely the work performed under those efforts relates to the proposed effort. The PCAG will, as deemed necessary, confirm past performance data identified by offerors in their proposals, and obtain additional past performance data, if available from other sources.

6.2.4. When relevant performance records indicate performance problems, the Government will consider the number/severity of the problems, and the appropriateness/effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised). The Government may review more recent contracts or performance evaluations to ensure corrective actions have been implemented, evaluate their effectiveness, and determine if the problems recurred.

6.2.5. As a result of an analysis of strong points, weak points and relevancy, each offeror will receive an integrated Past Performance Confidence Assessment as the rating for the Past Performance factor. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the Technical Capability subfactors, the resulting Performance Confidence Assessment is made at the Past Performance factor level and represents an overall evaluation of the offering team’s performance.

6.2.6. Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less-than-satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system (such as CPARS). Offerors will be allowed to respond to adverse past performance information if they have not previously had an opportunity to do so.

6.2.7. Offerors are to note that, in conducting this assessment, the Government reserves the right to use both data provided by the Offeror and that obtained from other sources. In addition, as past performance information is relevant information regarding a contractor’s actions under previously awarded contracts, the Government, while focusing on the Technical Capability subfactors, reserves the right to evaluate a contractor’s past performance that may not be directly linked to Technical Capability (e.g., contractor’s record of conforming to contract requirements and/or standards of good workmanship; record of forecasting and controlling costs; adherence to contract schedules, including administrative aspects of performance; history of reasonable and cooperative behavior and commitment to customer satisfaction; and, in general, business-like concern for the interest of the customer).

6.2.8. Offerors without a record of relevant past performance (or for whom information on past performance is unavailable) will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive a Neutral/Unknown Confidence rating for the Past Performance factor.

6.2.9. More recent and relevant performance may result in a higher Performance Confidence

Assessment than less recent or relevant effort based on the relevancy definitions stated above. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a Neutral/Unknown Confidence rating.

6.2.10. The Government may consider the offeror’s past performance in aggregate in addition to an effort (contract)-by-effort basis.

6.2.11. Each offeror will receive one of the Past Performance Confidence Assessment ratings for the Past Performance factor, IAW AFFARS 5315.305, Table 3, below.

AFFARS 5315.305, Table 3

Table 3 - PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

Rating Description

HIGH CONFIDENCE Based on the offeror’s performance record, the government has high confidence the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

SIGNIFICANT

CONFIDENCE

Based on the offeror’s performance record, the government has significant confidence the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

SATISFACTORY

CONFIDENCE

Based on the offeror’s performance record, the government has confidence the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Normal contractor emphasis should preclude any problems.

UNKNOWN

CONFIDENCE

No performance record is identifiable.

LITTLE CONFIDENCE Based on the offeror’s performance record, substantial doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

NO CONFIDENCE Based on the offeror’s performance record, extreme doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.