N-ITSS_Section_M_PPT_v10 _rev_2.docx

SECTION M

Evaluation Factors for Award

GENERAL

Basis for Contract Award This is a tradeoff of Past Performance versus Cost/Price source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15.3, 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 04 Mar 2011, and Air Force Mandatory Procedures 5315.3. These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FARSite, http://farsite.hill.af.mil. The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of Technical Acceptability, Past Performance, and Price. Tradeoffs will be made only between Past Performance and Price among those Offerors who have been determined to be technically acceptable. Past Performance is significantly more important than Price.

Contract(s) may be awarded to the Offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with FAR Part 9, 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. The Government seeks to award to the Offeror who gives the Air Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet the requirements. 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 superior past performance of the higher priced technically acceptable offer outweighs the cost/price difference. The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation (described below). While the Government source selection team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

Number of Contracts to be Awarded The Government intends to award up to one (1) contract for the NASIC IT Support Services (N-ITSS) Program.

Correction Potential of Proposals The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential" of any deficiency. The judgment of such "correction potential" is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal does not meet the Government's requirements and is not considered correctable, the Offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range.

Discussions The Government intends to award a contract without discussions. The Government, however, reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest.

If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, Offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. If the Offeror is evaluated as Technically Acceptable and Past Performance is Satisfactory or above at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the Final Proposal Revision are subject to evaluation and may increase the risk that the Offeror’s proposal will be determined Unacceptable and, thus, ineligible for award.

Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, technical requirements and examples of past performance, 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 the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions unacceptable and the proposal, therefore, ineligible for award.

EVALUATION FACTORS

Evaluation Factors and Subfactors The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal:

Factor 1: Technical Subfactor 1: Program Management Subfactor 2: Operations and Maintenance Subfactor 3: Transition Schedule and Plan Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Price Technical Factor The Government’s technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals on a pass/fail basis, 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. However, the Offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion.

TABLE 1 - TECHNICAL RATINGS

The proposals shall be evaluated against the following technical subfactors:

Subfactor 1: Program Management

Description: This subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s management approach to execute the N-ITSS Contract, to include IDIQ management, human resources and management approach and security.

IDIQ Management (Task Order PWS Management): This measure of merit is met when the Offeror’s proposal demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of the scope of management (to include on-site management) required to accomplish the N-ITSS requirements called out in the IDIQ and task order PWS’s with regards to managing personnel across various task orders and shifts to ensure seamless, uninterrupted quality support to the customer.

Additionally, this measure of merit is met when the Offeror’s proposal reflects a defined and comprehensive management approach (CMA) with regards to an operations and maintenance strategic plan for execution of daily operations and a skills-to-technology matrix.

Management Plan (Personnel): This measure of merit is met when the Offeror has demonstrated a comprehensive understanding of the scope of work required to ensure the Offeror’s team possesses or can readily possess the personnel required to accomplish the N-ITSS tasks set forth within each PWS with the required certifications or specialized training.

Additionally, this measure of merit is met when the Offeror’s proposal reflects a defined and comprehensive management approach to staffing maintenance, a staffing plan delineating all functional areas within each PWS to include proposed CME, personnel training/cross training, and backup maintenance plans.

Security: This measure of merit is met when the Offeror’s approach reflects effective processes and procedures to obtain the appropriate company and personnel security clearances; processes to report security incidents, infractions and violations in compliance with Government regulations and processes to ensure personnel understand and comply with applicable security requirements. This measure of merit is also met when the Offeror possesses an active Top Secret (TS/SCI) Facility Clearance.

Subfactor 2: Operations and Maintenance

a. CFP/Helpdesk (SC and GSP): This factor evaluates the Offeror’s working knowledge, experience, and skill with regard to:

· managing 24x7 shift workers

· resolving/escalating incidents and/or problems

· executing checklists and/or standard operating procedures

· notifying senior government leaders

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the Offeror’s proposal thoroughly addresses each of the above criteria with regard to demonstrated applied expertise.

b. Infrastructure Engineering and Installation: This factor evaluates the Offeror’s working knowledge, experience, and skill with regard to:

· Designing and documenting a premises fiber-optic network infrastructure of similar size to the NASIC enterprise

· Managing a team of five or more certified fiber technicians to install and maintain an enterprise size premises fiber-optic network infrastructure

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the Offeror’s proposal thoroughly addresses each of the above criteria citing two separate examples with regard to demonstrated applied expertise.

c. Network Administration (Network Hardware Support): This factor evaluates the Offeror’s working knowledge, experience, and skill with regard to:

· Designing, installing, configuring, and maintaining an enterprise network infrastructure of similar size to the GSP enterprise

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the Offeror’s proposal thoroughly addresses each of the above criteria citing two separate examples with regard to demonstrated applied expertise.

d. System Administration (SC and GSP): This factor evaluates the Offeror’s working knowledge, experience, and skill with regard to:

· System Administration in a heterogeneous environment including Linux, Unix, and Windows

· Administering enterprise services comparable to the size, scope, and complexity of the NASIC enterprise

· Heavy scripting (Perl, Python, Bash, PowerShell, etc) to streamline complex tasks/jobs running within the infrastructure

· Ability to manage at least three separately governed enterprise, networked systems (For example: NIPRNet, SIPRNet, JWICS, mission networks, and other secure networks.)

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the Offeror’s proposal thoroughly addresses each of the above criteria with regard to demonstrated applied expertise.

e. Enterprise Storage and Backup Services: This factor evaluates the Offeror’s working knowledge, experience, and skill with regard to:

· Providing maintenance, administration, updates, configuration, integration and diagnostics of Storage Area Networks (SAN)

· Quantum tape backup systems, Hitachi VSP, Hitachi Unified storage, Oracle Unified storage, and Dell Compellent, and Brocade SAN switches

· Prior experience metrics including number of supported users, number of LUNs maintained, list of management software used, size of storage pools maintained, and enterprise backup software employed

· Installing, maintaining, administering and updating a Brocade enterprise-level data center and campus SAN fabric switches using Fibre-Channel and iSCSI, CIFS, ZFS and NFS protocols comparable to the size, scope, and complexity of the NASIC enterprise

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the Offeror’s proposal thoroughly addresses each of the above criteria citing two separate examples with regard to demonstrated applied expertise.

f. VTC: This factor evaluates the Offeror’s working knowledge, experience, and skill with regard to:

· Video Teleconferencing (VTC) installation, maintenance, scheduling and troubleshooting

· Operating Crestron, Tandberg and Cisco VTC units

· Working with high ranking customers and their staff

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the Offeror’s proposal thoroughly addresses each of the above criteria with regard to demonstrated applied expertise.

g. Multimedia: This factor evaluates the Offeror’s working knowledge, experience, and skill with regard to:

· The installation, remedial and preventative hardware and software maintenance on various electronic equipment and network systems to include Sony Analog / Digital Video Editing Equipment, Audio Visual Technical Support (projectors, screens, TV's), Audio/Video Editing Stations, Tandberg Video Teleconferencing Systems and Crestron control systems

· The installation, integration, troubleshooting and repair of LED, LCD, CRT and DLP video displays systems to include multiple manufacturers of flat screens, CRT screens and projectors

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the Offeror’s proposal thoroughly addresses each of the above criteria with regard to demonstrated applied expertise.

h. Security Engineer Support: This factor evaluates the Offeror’s working knowledge, experience, and skill with regard to:

· Working with architects and engineers to review security architecture and provide secure network design architectures, virtualization technologies, application security, and web applications

· Ability to provide software-level and hardware-level security assessments with at least three separately governed enterprise, networked systems (For example: NIPRNet, SIPRNet, JWICS, mission networks, and other secure networks.)

· Security Engineering Support in a heterogeneous environment including multiple OSes (Linux, Unix, and Windows), multi-tiered storage environment, multiple security level domains (NIPRNet, SIPRNet, JWICS, etc), and assessing data presentation and data dissemination

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the Offeror’s proposal thoroughly addresses each of the above criteria citing one example with regard to demonstrated applied expertise.

i. Data Center Support: This factor evaluates the Offeror’s working knowledge, experience, and skill with regard to:

· Administration/management in a heterogeneous environment including Linux, Unix, and Windows in direct correlation with distributed object storage systems (e.g. S3 / SWIFT)

· Experience managing complex computing environments using Puppet, Chef, Ansible or Salt Stack

· Administering enterprise services comparable to the size, scope, and complexity of the NASIC enterprise

· Heavy scripting and various programming languages including, C, Python, Perl, and Java to streamline complex tasks/jobs running within the infrastructure and computing systems

· Contribution to development of next-generation cluster-processing framework, algorithms, and tooling (using C++, OpenCL/CUDA, MATLAB, MPI, Pthreads)

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the Offeror’s proposal thoroughly addresses each of the above criteria with regard to demonstrated applied expertise.

j. Physical Access Control/Intrusion Detection: This factor evaluates the Offeror’s working knowledge, experience, and skill with regard to:

· Bosch & Linux video recording systems, Bosch CCTV, portal electrical latch assembles, TOA call box installation and maintenance and electronics repair capability

· Designing, implementing and maintaining the physical access control and intrusion detection systems for an SCI facility.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the Offeror’s proposal thoroughly addresses each of the above criteria citing one example with regard to demonstrated applied expertise.

Subfactor 3: Transition Schedule and Plan

Description: This subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s transition approach from the incumbent for the support required in each functional area of each Task Order PWS.

Measure of Merit: This measure of merit is met when the Offeror’s proposal thoroughly substantiates a viable approach for meeting all of the following:

· Addresses all activities associated with phase-in activities in accordance with PWS section 11

· Clearly details how the Offeror will assume responsibility from the incumbent for the support required in each functional area of each Task Order, section 3

· Detailed scheduled of actions to be taken to ensure that there is no gap or reduction in service when the incumbent contract expires

Past Performance Factor The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the Offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements.

Ratings.

The Past Performance factor will receive one of the performance confidence assessments described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 5 – Performance Confidence Assessments, excerpted below.

TABLE 5- PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

LIMITED CONFIDENCE

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

NO

CONFIDENCE

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Evaluation Process.

The past performance evaluation considers each Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements. Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the Offeror’s (as a whole, including Prime and any subcontractors) recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the Technical subfactors. The Government may consider past performance in the aggregate in addition to on an individual contract basis. In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the Offeror’s Past Performance proposal volume and information obtained from other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers and Fee Determining Officials; the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources.

Recency Assessment An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

Relevancy Assessment The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the services performed under those contracts relate to the Technical subfactors. For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed for the Technical subfactors (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). Consideration will be given to information technology support services, similar in size, scope and complexity to the N-ITSS effort. A relevancy determination of the Offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations, including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s). In determining the relevancy of effort performed under individual past performance contracts, the government will only consider the specific effort or portion consistent with that proposed by the prime, subcontractor or teaming partner. The past performance information forms (PIFs) and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance. The Government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing recent, relevant contracts (DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 4):

Performance Quality Assessment The Government will consider the performance quality (how well the contractor performed on the contracts) of recent and relevant efforts. For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed for the Technical subfactors; however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered. The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of all past performance information available.

The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated.

The Government will use the following quality levels when assessing recent, relevant efforts:

Assigning Ratings.

As a result of the relevancy and performance quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, Offeror’s will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the Technical subfactors, the resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance. Offeror’s without a record of recent/relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive an "Unknown Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor.

More recent and relevant performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less recent or relevant effort. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than an "Unknown Confidence" rating. Likewise, a more relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance.

Price Factor Price proposals will be evaluated for (1) completeness, (2) reasonableness, (3) unbalanced pricing, and (4) Total Evaluated Price. Offeror’s whose price is determined to be incomplete or unreasonable will not be considered for award. Additionally, an offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines unbalanced pricing poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

Completeness.

The Government will review the pricing submissions for completeness and compliance with Section L of the solicitation.

Reasonableness.

The Offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated, using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404, in order to determine if it is reasonable. For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. Normally, price reasonableness is established through cost and price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404. For additional information see FAR 31.201-3.

Unbalanced Pricing.

The Government will analyze each proposal to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to all price line items between all task orders in accordance with FAR 15.404-1.

Purchasing Government will validate purchasing process exists.

Accounting System Government will validate approved accounting system exists.

Total Evaluated Price (TEP): The TEP will be calculated using:

a) The sum of the first three task orders that will be awarded concurrently with the IDIQ contract for a period of performance of one (1) year.

b) Annual pricing for years two (2) through five (5) for the three task orders in then-year dollars with the assumption that that the number of contractors and functional areas will remain the same for each year for the three task orders.

All labor rates provided for each of the five years are binding and will be added to Section J of the contract. Functional areas above and beyond task orders one, two and three will be evaluated as the requirement arises. Pursuant to 52.219-14 Limitations on Subcontracting, at least 50% of the labor cost must be incurred by the Prime.

PRE-AWARD SURVEY

The Government may conduct a pre-award survey (PAS) as part of this source selection. Results of the PAS (if conducted) will be evaluated to determine each Offeror’s capacity to meet the requirements of the solicitation.