DRAFT_RFP_Attch_8-_Section_M.docx

RFP FA8530-19-R-0001 Attachment 8

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

I. Basis for Contract Award

A. Source Selection Methodology: This acquisition will utilize the Tradeoff source selection procedures in accordance with FAR 15.101-2 and 15.3 as supplemented by the DoD Source Selection Procedures referenced in DFARS 215.300 and the AFFARS Mandatory Procedures 5315.3 to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. The Government intends to award one contract as a result of this solicitation. A decision on the technical acceptability of each offeror’s proposal will be made. For those offerors who are determined to be technically acceptable, tradeoffs may be made between technical risk and cost/price. Technical risk is considered significantly more important than cost/price. This may result in an 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 lower technical risk of the higher priced offeror outweighs the cost difference. To arrive at a best value decision, the SSA will integrate the source selection team’s evaluations of the factors and subfactors described in this provision. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the tradeoff process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the selection process. Offerors are reminded that the Government will only evaluate one proposal from each offeror. Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal conforms to all required terms and conditions, includes all required representations and certifications, meets all requirements set forth in the RFP and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation as described in paragraph II below.

II. Proposal Evaluation: The evaluation process will be accomplished as follows (Organized by volume):

A. General

1. Discussions: The Government intends to award without discussions. The Government, however, reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest. Any discussions will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.306. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer, with the concurrence of the Source Selection Authority, may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

B. Volume I, Completed RFP

1. Completed RFP: Volume I, Completed RFP shall be evaluated to ensure the RFP and any amendments issued are signed, and all “fill-in” clauses and provisions are completed as required. The cover letter shall be evaluated to determine the number, types, and accompanying rationale of exceptions taken to the RFP terms and conditions. The Government reserves the right to determine any exceptions taken to the RFP terms and conditions as being non-compliant with the stated solicitation requirements, and thus render the proposal not eligible for award.

2. Cross Reference Matrix: The cross reference matrix will be utilized as a tool to show critical interrelationships and dependencies among the technical requirements documents Performance-Based Work Statement (PWS), the Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL), Section L (Instructions to Offerors) and Section M (Evaluation Basis for Award). The cross reference matrix will help offerors ensure they have responded to all the evaluation criteria and proposal submittal requirements identified in the solicitation. If the matrix conflicts with any other requirement, direction, or provision of this solicitation, the other reference shall take precedence over this matrix. Section M references in the matrix are for informational purposes only, and the Government shall be obligated to evaluate proposals solely in conformance with the provisions of Section M of the solicitation. Failure by the offeror to submit this completed cross reference matrix will result in the offeror being considered as failing to meet the RFP terms and conditions.

C. Volume II, Technical Factor

1. General: Each offeror’s written technical proposal shall be evaluated, based on the subfactors below, to determine if the offeror provides a sound, compliant approach that meets the requirements of the PWS, and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements and their associated risks. The technical proposal addresses each of the following subfactors in sufficient detail. For each subfactor, the offeror identifies risks, if any, associated with the proposed approach and actions the offeror will take to mitigate the identified risks. If no risks/mitigations are identified in the offeror’s proposal, it indicates the offeror does not consider there to be any risk associated with their proposed approach.

Subfactor One (Management Plan): This subfactor is met when the written technical proposal provides an adequate and acceptable management plan, which describes how the offeror intends to successfully manage and perform the requirements of the TDSSe² PWS. At a minimum, the plan detailed an adequate approach to managing the following:

1) Approach to employee management plan (such as, internal team communication, monitoring of team member activities, how you plan to recruit, hire, train, and retain employees capable of supporting the scope of the TDSSe² PWS).

2) Approach to include subcontracting with AbilityOne provider capable of supporting the scope of the TDSSe² PWS, in accordance with PWS paragraph 4.11.2.

3) Procedures for managing various levels of classification up to and including, Sensitive/Top Secret/Cosmic Top Secret Compartmented Information (SCI), including obtaining personnel with the appropriate security clearances.

Subfactor Two (Capability Task), RFP Attachment 4: This subfactor is met when the written technical proposal provides an adequate and acceptable approach to successfully satisfy the three scenarios in accordance with the TDSSe² PWS. At a minimum, the proposal detailed an adequate approach for the following for each of the three scenarios:

1) Knowledge of technical data systems and resources needed to complete a process flow chart, a clear chronological narrative of activities from start to end, and describe systems, software, and government support used to accomplish Scenario One.

2) Knowledge of technical data systems and resources needed to complete a process flow chart, a clear chronological narrative of activities from start to end, and describe systems, software, and government support used to accomplish Scenario Two.

3) Knowledge of technical data systems and resources needed to complete a process flow chart, a clear chronological narrative of activities from start to end, and describe systems, software, and government support used to accomplish Scenario Three.

Subfactor Three (Awardable Task), RFP Attachment 5: This subfactor is met when the written technical proposal provides an adequate and acceptable approach to successfully satisfy the Awardable Task attachment in accordance with the TDSSe² PWS. At a minimum, the proposal detailed an adequate approach for the following:

1) Knowledge on how requirements will be implemented

2) Knowledge on how requirements will be managed with minimal government intervention.

3) Approach to the appropriate labor skills mix and hours required to effectively and efficiently accomplish each task.

4) Approach to the technical data quality assurance processes.

2. Technical Rating: The technical rating reflects the evaluation of the acceptability of the offeror’s technical approach for meeting the Government’s requirement. The offeror’s proposal shall be evaluated to determine whether the proposal is acceptable or unacceptable, using the ratings and descriptions outlined in the table below. One technical rating will be assigned to each technical subfactor. In order to be considered awardable, there must be an “acceptable” rating in every subfactor.

Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings:

3. Technical Risk Rating: 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. The evaluation shall address the Source Selection Team’s identification of any weaknesses and/or significant weaknesses, as well as the offeror’s identified risks and proposed mitigation (if applicable) and document why that is or is not manageable. Each technical subfactor will receive one of the Technical Risk ratings described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, excerpted below.

Technical Risk Ratings:

D. Cost/Price Proposal Factor

1. Price Factor The offeror’s proposed prices will be evaluated for reasonableness and balance in accordance with paragraphs A and B below. A total evaluated price (TEP) will be calculated in accordance with paragraph C.

A. Reasonableness: The existence of adequate price competition is expected to support a determination of reasonableness. Price analysis techniques may be used to further validate price reasonableness. If adequate price competition is not obtained or if price reasonableness cannot be determined using price analysis of Government obtained information, additional information in accordance with FAR 15.4 may be required to support the proposed price.

B. Balance: Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, one or more contract line items (including the Basic and Option periods) is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. An overstated or understated CLIN price may be due to an illogical progression of rates, factors or unit prices between program years, (b) unit prices that do not take into account quantity variations, or (c) the “front-loading” of CLINs; either of these situations would reflect an inaccurate “true” cost for that CLIN. Front-loading occurs when a larger than normal amount of costs are concentrated in an early contract period. The Government will consider any “front-loaded” CLIN as unbalanced, since acceptance of the proposal would result in advance payment. The Government will analyze offers to determine whether there are unbalanced, separately priced line items or sub-line items. Prices submitted will be compared and evaluated to ensure that a logical progression exists as related to price and quantity changes within each offeror’s response to the pricing structure in the Labor Rate Matrix, RFP Attachment 2. Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

C. Total Evaluated Price (TEP): The TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only. Offerors are advised that the evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options. The sum of the evaluated prices of each CLIN (including Base and Option periods) will represent the TEP.

For CLINs 0001, 0002, 1001, 1002, 2001, 2002, 3001, 3002, 4001, 4002, 5001, and 5002, the evaluated price will be calculated following these steps:

NOTE: The Government has estimated the total labor hours expected to award during each contract period, which is provided in the ‘Labor Rate Matrix’, row 10, on both the ‘On-Base’ and ‘Off-Base’ worksheet. The Government will spread the estimated hours among the various labor categories (shown on ‘Labor Rate Matrix’), based on its own internal estimates.

Step 1: The Government will multiply the Offeror’s proposed fully burdened labor ‘On-Base’ rate for each category times the estimated labor hours (not disclosed to the Offeror) for the respective labor category, yielding the proposed labor dollars for each ‘On-Base’ labor category.

Step 2: The Government will add together the calculated proposed labor dollars for each ‘On-Base’ labor category to determine the proposed ‘On-Base’ costs.

Step 3: The Government will multiply the Offeror’s proposed fully burdened labor ‘Off-Base’ rate for each category times its estimated labor hours (not disclosed to the Offeror) for the respective labor category, yielding the proposed labor dollars for each ‘Off-Base’ labor category.

Step 4: The Government will add together the calculated proposed labor dollars for each ‘Off-Base’ labor category to determine the proposed ‘Off-Base’ costs.

Step 5: The Government will add together the proposed ‘On-base’ costs with the proposed ‘Off-Base’ costs to arrive at the total evaluated price (TEP).

All dollar amounts provided shall be rounded to the nearest whole dollar.

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

Pictured below is an example of the RFP Attachment 2 ‘Labor Rate Matrix’. The example is provided for demonstration purposes only and is not inclusive of all contract periods. The Government estimated dollars, hours, rates, quantities, and/or prices contained within are arbitrary numbers. The example is in no way reflective of the actual/total requirements as defined in the RFP. It is provided only as a means of identifying how the various types of calculations will be performed.

FFP-CPFF ON-BASE RATE MATRIX

FFP-CPFF OFF-BASE RATE MATRIX

TOTAL ON-BASE AND OFF-BASE: $60,291 + $7,512 = $67,803

image4.emf image5.emf image6.emf image7.emf image8.emf image1.emf image2.emf image3.emf