Section_M_DRAFT_RFP.pdf

UNCLASSIFIED

SECTION M

Evaluation Factors for Award

M001 SOURCE SELECTION

a. Basis for Contract Award This is a best value Indefinite Delivery / Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) multiple-award source selection for the Air Force (AF) Special Access Program (SAP) Security Support Services (SSS) contract conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS). These regulations are available at FARSite, http://farsite.hill.af.mil. The Government will compare each Offeror’s capabilities and proposal elements against the predetermined evaluation criteria related to requirements defined herein. A contract may be awarded to the Offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with 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). The Government will select the best overall offer(s) for the basic contract award, based upon an integrated assessment of Technical (Acceptable/Unacceptable) and Technical Risk (Low Risk Assessment). All responsible Offerors whose proposals are evaluated as Technically Acceptable, Low Technical Risk, will be granted a basic contract award. While the Government Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) 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.

For Offerors granted a basic IDIQ contract award, subsequent associated initial Task Orders (TOs) will be awarded in accordance with instructions included herein. The Government will award multiple TOs under a suite of similar efforts all of which shall be awarded to a single contractor. The Government may award one (1) or more initial TO suites. The Government may also award one (1) or more TOs to meet the minimum order guarantee (see CDRL *00C). A TO may be awarded based on evaluation factors and subfactors, to represent the best value to the Government.

As a result of this solicitation, the Government anticipates awarding multiple TOs. These are anticipated to be Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee contract with cost reimbursement for travel, for work described in the Performance Work Statement (PWS) and attachments to this solicitation. The contract period of performance will include a basic ordering period of five (5) years. There will be an option for an additional five (5) year ordering period. For the initial TO award, the Government anticipates three (3) TOs (suite A). Suite A will consist of two (2) TOs, each consisting of one (1) base year and four (4), one (1) year options, along with an additional three (3) month Firm-Fixed-Price TO for initial transition period. An option to extend for six (6) months, FAR Clause 52.217-8, will also be included for each TO. Pricing submitted for transition, and the six-month option to extend, will be included in the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) for each TO. The Government reserves the right to award less than the anticipated number of IDIQ contracts and/or task orders if offers received do not meet Government requirements.

The Government seeks to award TO Suites to Offeror(s) who give the Government the best overall value. The Government reserves the right to award a TO to other than the lowest priced offer. This may result in a TO Suite award to an Offeror with a lower technical risk rating but a higher cost/price, where the decision is consistent with evaluation factors, and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines the technical risk rating of the higher priced Offeror outweighs the cost/price difference. The SSA will base the TO source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation (described below).

b. Number of Contracts to be Awarded The Government intends to award to multiple qualified Offerors under the basic SSS IDIQ; however, there may also be multiple TO awards under that contract.

c. Discussions The Government intends to award without discussions. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed necessary. Any exchanges with Offerors solely to determine contractor responsibility shall not be considered discussions. Should the Government elect to enter discussions, Offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in the source selection decision. If the Offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any FPR submission which modifies or fails to conform to the essential requirements, or specifications of the Request for Proposal (RFP), shall be considered nonresponsive or receive an unacceptable proposal evaluation. The Government may conduct clarifications, as described in FAR 15.306(a).

In accordance with DoD Source Selection Procedures, the definition of deficiency and weakness are as follows:

Deficiency is 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.

Weakness means a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

d. 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. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions as unacceptable.

M002 EVALUATION FACTORS

a. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

(1) The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal for a contract award. Award will be made to the Offeror proposing the combination of factors and subfactors most advantageous to the Government that is Technically Acceptable and Low Risk. Evaluation of each proposal will be based upon an integrated assessment of the factor/subfactor elements described below:

Factor 1: Technical Capability

Subfactor 1: Transition (Pass/Fail basic award and TO award) Subfactor 2: Contractor Program Management Office (CPMO) (Pass/Fail basic award and adjectival rating for TO award) Subfactor 3: Staffing (Pass/Fail basic award and adjectival rating for TO award)

Factor 2: Technical Capability Risk Rating – evaluated against all technical subfactors for both basic award and TO award

Factor 3: Cost/Price (only evaluated at the TO level)

(2) Contract Award. For basic contract award the relative importance of each factor and subfactor to the Government is as follows: Technical Capability, Technical Capability Risk Rating listed in descending order of importance. Any Offeror deemed to have a final rating of technically unacceptable or a moderate risk or high risk assessment in the Technical Capability Factor, will be deemed ineligible for basic award.

(3) Initial TO Award. The relative importance of each factor and subfactor for initial TO award is as follows: Technical Capability, Technical Capability Risk Rating, and Cost/Price are listed in descending order of importance. However, any Offeror deemed to have a final rating of technically unacceptable, or moderate risk or high risk assessment in Technical Capability under the basic contract award, will be deemed ineligible for any subsequent TO awards. Within the Technical Capability Factor, subfactors are listed in descending order of importance for determining technical risk levels.

Requirements within each subfactor are of equal importance. For example, within Subfactor 1: SAP Personnel Management, Recruitment, Timely Hiring, and Retention are all of equal importance.

(3) In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), all TO evaluation factors other than Cost/Price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price.

b. Technical Factor The Government’s technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals at the subfactor level on an acceptable or unacceptable basis for basic contract award, assigning one of the ratings described below for each subfactor. Any subfactor evaluated as “unacceptable” 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. Offerors are reminded that the Government intends to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion.

For all Offerors granted a basic award, the Government will then assess the same technical volume for TO Suite award(s). Offerors should incorporate specific TO language within its proposal for evaluation

TABLE 1 – BASIC AWARD TECHNICAL RATINGS

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

purposes. Offerors should clearly specify which subfactor two and three technical elements are unique to an individual TO or Suite of TOs so they can be evaluated at the TO level. For TO Suite(s) the government will utilize color/adjectival ratings to reach a best value determination for subfactors two and three. Color ratings will correlate to adjectival ratings as outlined in Table 2, Technical Color Rating/Adjectival Rating Method (Separate Technical Rating). Since technical risk will be determined at basic contract award, technical risk will not be assessed again during initial TO awards.

TABLE 2 – TECHNICAL COLOR RATING/ADJECTIVAL RATING METHOD

Color Rating

Adjectival Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of requirements and contains multiple strengths.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of requirements and contains at least one strength.

Green Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of requirements.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of requirements.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable.

Proposals shall be evaluated against the following technical subfactors:

Subfactor 1: Transition Description: This subfactor is met when the Offeror’s Transition Plan, is formatted in accordance with CDRL *006, and meets all PWS and ITO requirements. The submittal also includes a real world situation.

The Offeror’s proposal must achieve an “acceptable” rating in the following areas:

Measure of Merit: This element is met when all of the following are fulfilled:

Incoming Transition Transition Plan includes a complete, annotated outline of the content as defined in the CDRL that will accomplish transition in time for complete initial contract performance. The incoming plan includes:

• Timeline that brings all personnel onto the project and meeting administration, security, and job related preparation requirements.

o Qualified key personnel are available and ready upon start of transition.

o Non-key personnel are available and ready by TO start of service.

• Assumption of responsibility for each task at all required locations.

• Identification of efforts made to ensure no degradation or break of service throughout transition periods.

• Management approach that monitors and controls the transition.

• Approach that communicates status of transition to the customer.

• Approach that identifies and manages transition risks and issues.

• Executable detailed Integrated Master Schedule of key transition events.

Outgoing Transition The Transition Plan describes the outgoing plan to transfer responsibility for each PWS requirement from the incumbent contract to a new contract, to include monitoring and controlling transition activities, and key transition events to ensure continuity of work to the new contract vehicle or TO. The outgoing plan includes:

• Executable timeline that transitions personnel off of the TO and meeting administration, security, and job related preparation requirements. Plan demonstrates transfer of responsibility for tasks at all required locations.

• Efforts made that ensures no degradation of service throughout transition periods.

• Executable management approach to monitor and control the transition.

• Approach that communicates status of transition to the customer.

• Approach that identifies and manages transition risks and issues.

• Executable detailed Integrated Master Schedule of transition events.

Subfactor 2: Contractor Program Management Office (CPMO)

The basic contract subfactor will be evaluated as technically acceptable or unacceptable and the TO subfactor will be evaluated using the color/adjectival rating method (See section M002 Evaluation Factors).

Basic Contract Subfactor Evaluation Description: This subfactor is met when the Offeror’s proposal explains their Program Management Approach (PMA) and provides clear and realistic supporting rationale and explanation(s).

The Offeror’s proposal must achieve an “acceptable” rating in each of the CPMO elements below.

Measure of Merit: This subfactor is met when all five (5) of the CPMO elements are fulfilled:

Task Order Subfactor evaluation The response to this subfactor should demonstrate the Offeror’s understanding of the CPMO elements below. The response to each of the five (5) elements are of equal importance

Measure of Merit: The CPMO approach will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the Offeror’s response demonstrates an effective approach (to include understanding) to meet the CPMO elements.

(a) CPMO Elements

Organizational Structure

• Detailed top to bottom organizational structure for the entire SSS enterprise, including any and all TOs, includes interrelationships between all entities.

• PMA allows for scalability should the offer be awarded one or more TOs.

• Organizational structure includes the number of personnel, skill mix, and labor hours that would apply to any and all applicable TO mixes.

Organizational Narrative

• Includes a descriptive narrative of an organizational structure with supporting rationale for the number of personnel, skill mix, and labor hours.

Program Management Oversight

• Proposal describes how program manager(s) will maintain visibility, quality, and control over all potential TO combinations. Description also includes oversight of subcontracted workload.

Key Leadership/Management

• Identifies all key leadership and/or management positions included in the PMA. For each individual identified, the Offeror provides:

o 1) Rationale for the position being designated as key, o 2) Roles and responsibilities of the position, and o 3) Minimum qualifications (education and expertise) for each position o 4) Resumes for all identified key personnel.

For all positions identified as key the Offeror has submitted a letter of commitment from the individual(s) stating that they will perform in the assigned position for at least the transition period and first year of contract performance.

Key Personnel The Offeror identifies all other key personnel, to include the contractor program manager(s) necessary to meet contractual requirements in PWS 3.3. This element is met when all of the following are fulfilled:

• Resume for contractor program manager demonstrates that this individual has the qualifications necessary to meet PWS requirements.

• Resumes and letters of intent for all key personnel are included in Tab 3 of the proposal.

The Offeror must also clearly identify that key personnel currently hold the required security clearance or provide an executable approach demonstrating that these personnel can be cleared in time for transition.

Subfactor 3: Staffing This subfactor evaluates an Offeror’s management strategies, processes, ability to manage personnel in SAP positions, and their ability to recruit and retain personnel necessary to meet PWS requirements. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Professional Employee Compensation Plan (PECP) to ensure 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 industry 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.

The measure of merit for this subfactor is listed within the individual staffing elements.

Note: The measure of merit for this subfactor are the same for the basic contract and TO evaluations; however, the basic contract subfactor will be evaluated as technically acceptable or unacceptable and the task order subfactor will be evaluated using the color/adjectival rating method (See section M002 Evaluation Factors).

Basic Contract Subfactor Evaluation The Offeror’s proposal must achieve an “acceptable” rating in each of the four (4) staffing elements.

Task Order Subfactor evaluation The response to this subfactor should demonstrate the Offeror’s understanding of the staffing elements below. The response to each of the four (4) elements are of equal importance.

The staffing approach will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the Offeror’s response demonstrates an effective approach (to include understanding) to meet the staffing elements.

(a) Staffing Elements SAP Personnel Management Measure of Merit: This element is met when the Offeror’s proposal and associated Program Management Plan (PMP), Section L 4.6.1 and Tab 1, formatted in accordance with CDRL *005, clearly and logically demonstrates an understanding of global SAP personnel management, SAP-specific personnel security requirements, and position disciplines described in the PWS. This understanding must correlate with PWS requirements.

- The staffing approach presents a logical, complete and effective staffing profile that outlines planning, selection, processing, and placement of personnel, that ensures all personnel meet PWS qualification requirements.

- The approach for obtaining the requisite security clearances for initial and sustained staffing demonstrates an understanding of the security clearance process and presents an executable plan with alternate plans for requirements execution.

- The approach describes how the team, including subcontractors and partners, will fulfill workload requirements. This is identified in the Workload Distribution Matrix, submitted as Tab 2. The submission addresses all positions identified in contract Attachment J. All proposed personnel are identified by payee, position number and location with associated proposed prime or subcontractor assignments. The matrix includes proposed labor and positions for all management positions internal to the Offeror.

- The submittal describes an executable concept for meeting complete staffing requirements as identified in PWS 5.1.2.

- The approach adequately describes an executable method(s) to staff requirements in foreign countries that considers policies, procedures, timelines, and constraints affecting this stationing. This approach demonstrates a clear understanding of OCONUS staffing constraints and presents alternative methods for meeting requirements in the event of extended in-country processing delays.

Recruitment Measure of Merit: This element is met when the Offeror’s proposal demonstrates effective strategies and concepts necessary to ensure adequate recruitment of personnel to fill vacated SAP positions or newly identified SAP positions with cleared, qualified personnel as defined by PWS 5.1.2. The submittal should demonstrate an ongoing ability to recruit for new and vacated positions in contentious markets.

The approach presents strategies and concepts that demonstrate an acceptable approach for initial staffing, PWS 5.1.1, and complete staffing, PWS 5.1.2. The L-4 – Unburdened Labor Rate Matrix demonstrates an executable, low risk basis for recruitment of any and all positions and locations (this is not intended to be a cost volume, but a comprehensive direct labor list for each individual skill set and location).

PECP submissions demonstrate an acceptable approach to recruit a qualified workforce as outlined in contract Attachment J. PECP ccompensation levels reflect a clear understanding of work to be performed and indicate the capability of proposed compensation structure to recruit suitably qualified personnel to meet PWS requirements. Salaries identified in the L-4, Unburdened Labor Rate Matrix, take into account differences in skills, complexity of disciplines, and professional job difficulty. Additionally, proposals envisioning compensation levels lower than those of predecessor contractors for the same work will be evaluated on the basis of uninterrupted high-quality work, and availability of required competent professional service employees. Offerors are cautioned that lowered compensation for essentially the same professional work may indicate lack of sound management judgment and lack of understanding of the requirement.

Timely Hiring Measure of Merit: This element is met when the Offeror describes an effective and comprehensive plan for timely hiring of SAP personnel as defined in PWS 5.1.4. This plan includes the entire hiring cycle, to include realistic times necessary for security clearances and placement that will meet PWS requirements.

Retention Measure of Merit: This element is met when the Offeror’s proposal describes an executable approach that demonstrates an ability to meet retention requirements as defined in PWS

5.1.7. The submittal should demonstrate an ongoing ability to retain staff in contentious markets.

The approach presents strategies and concepts that demonstrate an acceptable approach for meeting retention requirements outlined in PWS 5.1.7. PECP(s) compensation levels reflect a clear understanding of work to be performed and indicate the capability of proposed compensation structure to retain suitably qualified personnel to meet PWS 5.1.7 requirements. Salaries identified in the L-4, Unburdened Labor Rate Matrix, take into account differences in skills, complexity of disciplines, and professional job difficulty.

Additionally, proposals envisioning compensation levels lower than those of predecessor contractors for the same work will be evaluated on the basis of maintaining program continuity, uninterrupted high-quality work, and availability of required competent professional service employees. Offerors are cautioned that lowered compensation for essentially the same professional work may indicate lack of sound management judgment and lack of understanding of the requirement.The L-4 – Unburdened Labor Rate Matrix demonstrates an executable, low risk basis for retention of any and all positions and locations (this is not intended to be a cost volume, but a comprehensive direct labor list for each individual skill set and location).

c. Technical Risk Assessment If the proposal is determined to be technically acceptable, the technical evaluation team will review the technical proposal and assign an overall Technical Risk Rating (there will be no individual subfactor risk assessment). The overall Technical Risk Rating will be assigned after a government assessment of risks associated with each subfactor. Assessments of technical risk are based on, but not limited to, the potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, or the need for increased government oversight.

Proposals that present L-4, Unburdened Labor Rate Matrix values that are at or marginally above Government floor values are likely to introduce greater risk in Technical Subfactor 3, Staffing.

Each technical subfactor will receive one of the Technical Risk Ratings described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Technical Risk Ratings, excerpted below. The risk rating considers the risk associated with the technical approach in meeting requirements.

TABLE 2 – TECHNICAL RISK RATINGS

Rating Description

Low Has 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 Can 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 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.

d. Cost/Price Factor

1. The total cost proposed of all Cost Reimbursable CLINs within a suite of Task Orders (TOs) will be evaluated through a cost realism analysis, by calculating a Probable Cost (PC) (FAR 15.404-1(d)(2)) for the TO Basic period of performance and all Option Years. In addition, Labor Rates for all Cost Reimbursable CLINs within the basic contract will be evaluated through cost realism analysis, by calculating a Probable Cost (PC) for each labor rate in the Base and Option period. For the Cost/Price Factor, the source selection decision will be based on the Offeror’s Total Evaluated Price (TEP) PC determination. Award will be made at the Offeror’s proposed cost. Additionally, the Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated to determine if the proposed price is reasonable and balanced.

2. Evaluation of ordering periods will not obligate the Government to place an order during each period.

a. Reasonableness. The Offeror’s Cost/Price proposal will be evaluated to ensure it is fair and reasonable, pursuant to FAR 15.404. Adequate price competition will satisfy reasonableness. For additional information see FAR 31.201-3.

b. Unbalanced Pricing. The Government will analyze proposals to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to prices and separately priced line items in accordance with FAR 15.404-1.

An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

c. Realism. This evaluation will include the extent proposed costs indicate a clear understanding of solicitation requirements; realistic for the work to be performed; and consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the Offerors technical proposal, pursuant to FAR 15.404.

When the Government evaluates an offer as unrealistically low compared to the anticipated costs of performance, and the Offeror fails to adequately explain these underestimated costs, the Government will consider, under the technical subfactor risk rating, the Offeror’s lack of understanding of technical requirements for the applicable technical subfactors. If the cost realism analysis determines the Offeror’s PC differs from its proposed cost, the Government will utilize the Offeror’s PC for Source Selection Decision purposes. Should further information to support price realism be necessary, the Government reserves the right to request additional information.

d. Total Evaluated Price (TEP). An Offeror whose price is determined to be unreasonable or unbalanced, may not be considered for award. All elements required for the TEP shall be included in the L-5 Attachment Cost Model Workbook; these elements, excluding XXX3, 0007, and XXX9 will be evaluated for cost realism. Cost realism analysis will not be completed on CLINs XXX3, 0007, and XXX9. For CLINs where the Government will perform cost realism, the Government will use the PC for these CLINs in the TEP computation.

The TEP will be computed as the sum of the three (3) awardable tasks (TO 1, TO 2, and Transition)) for the Basic and all TO option periods. All rates and labor categories shall conform to the labor rate matrix.

Labor Rates will be established for pricing all future contractual modifications/TOs for all specified pricing arrangements. Labor Rates will be attached to the basic contract, in Section J, for future reference and use. Fully loaded rates are inclusive of base labor rates and all applicable direct and indirect costs and fee.

Awardable TOs will be awarded at contract award and the Offeror will be held to submitted prices.

The TO CLIN structure is as follows:

XXX1 Labor

XXX2 ODC

XXX3 Data XXX7 Transition

XXX9 Incentive

First CLIN position will designate the year (0=Base Year, 1=Option Year 1, etc.)

Second and Third CLIN position are numerical placeholders to designate payee.

Fourth position will designate CLIN type (e.g., Labor, ODC, and Data)

For example:

CLIN 0012 would be Base Year, Payee 01, ODC

CLIN 2201 would be Option Year 2, payee 20, Labor

The TEP will include the following CLINs:

FFP CLIN XXX7 (TO 3)

TEP for this CLIN will be the Offeror’s proposed firm fixed price for the transition period.

CPFF CLINs XXX1 Labor (TO 1 and 2)

CLIN XXX1.

TEP for CLIN XXX1 will be the total costs associated with positions specified in the TO PWS’, along with the total costs associated with any additional direct charge employees associated with the Offeror’s management team. This CLIN also includes the Offeror’s proposed fixed fee, where the fixed fee, when combined with the maximum incentive fee pool amount, shall not exceed 9% of the total Labor CPFF CLIN XXX1. CLIN XXX1 portion of fee shall not exceed 40% of the total proposed fee (CLIN XXX1 and fixed price incentive CLIN XXX9).

CR CLIN: XXX2 ODC and Travel (TO 1 and 2)

TEP for CLIN XXX2 shall be proposed by taking the government ODC plug value of $XX (TBD) and travel estimate of $5,300 per person per calendar year, combined with the Offeror’s applicable indirect rates, where the indirect rates are in accordance with the respective Offeror’s accounting system.

FFP CLIN: XXX9 (TO 1 and 2)

CLIN XXX9 is included in the TEP as it is a fixed price monetary performance incentive. The CLIN XXX1 fixed fee, when combined with the maximum incentive fixed price pool amount (CLIN XXX9), shall not exceed 9% of the total Labor CPFF CLIN XXX1. CLIN XXX9 shall not exceed 60% of the total proposed fee (CLIN XXX1 and fixed price incentive CLIN XXX9).

6.1.7 Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees: IAW with FAR Provision 52.222-46, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Professional Employee Compensation plan to assure that it reflects a realistic and balanced cost/price approach of the contract requirements. 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. Supporting information will include data, such as recognized national and regional compensation surveys and studies of professional, public and private organizations, used in establishing the total compensation structure.

Proposals envisioning compensation levels lower than those of predecessor contractors for the same work will be evaluated on the basis of maintaining program continuity, uninterrupted high-quality work, and availability of required competent professional service employees. Offerors are cautioned that lowered compensation for essentially the same professional work may indicate lack of sound management judgment and lack of understanding of the requirement

Failure to comply with these provisions may constitute sufficient cause to justify rejection of a proposal.

e. CO Responsibility Determination

(a) The CO will make a responsibility determination in accordance with FAR 9.104-1 and 9.104- 2 for the apparently successful Offeror prior to contract award using the information provided in Section L section 6.3. The CO may also use other sources of information to make a responsibility determination.

(b) Post Award Security. Offerors provide evidence that they have a facility eligible for accreditation at the TS level, or that they have an accredited SAPF. If a SAPF is required, Offerors shall coordinate with the Government PSO 30 days prior to the accreditation. Offerors shall provide a Post Award Security Plan to have personnel accessed and facilities accredited in accordance with the information provided in Section L 6.3.3.

(c) Security Clearances. As part of the responsibility determination the CO will ensure that no more than eight (8) personnel remain briefed for each proposal. If the proposal exceeds this number, the Offeror will be disqualified from the competition.

f. Other Information

(a) Reviews and Visits. The Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) members, Government security personnel, and CO may conduct site visits during the evaluation to gather information for judging the Offeror’s potential for correcting weaknesses or deficiencies. If conducted, the results will be assessed under the applicable factors / subfactors and will be used to validate and confirm the Offeror’s written proposal

(b) Solicitation Requirements. 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 Offeror(s) being ineligible for award.

(End of Section M)