DRAFT BIM J-8 Section M 20230920.pdf

Section M, Page 1 of 12

SECTION M – EVALUATION CRITERIA

1. General Information

1.1. Basis for Award

This acquisition will utilize the streamlined process described by FAR 15.304(c)(1)(ii), where evaluation will not include price or cost and award will be made to each and all qualifying offerors.

As used in this solicitation, a “qualifying offeror” means an offeror that is determined to be a responsible source, submits a technically acceptable proposal that conforms to the requirements of the solicitation, and the contracting officer has no reason to believe would be likely to offer other than fair and reasonable pricing. For this acquisition a technically acceptable proposal means that all factors or subfactors are rated as “Acceptable” and conforms to the requirements of the solicitation. The Government will comply with FAR 9.105-2(a)(2) and the procedures of FAR Subpart 19.6 in the case of small businesses that lack elements of responsibility.

Evaluation will be in accordance with FAR 15.101-1, as supplemented by the DFARS, DAFFARS, AFFARS Mandatory Procedures, and the Department of Defense Source Selection Procedures (August 2022). By submission of its offer in accordance with the instructions provided in Section L, Instructions to Offerors, 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 or subfactors.

The Government reserves the right to award without discussions. Therefore, each initial proposal shall contain the Offeror’s best terms. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the selection process, by its nature, is subjective and, therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

This is an acquisition under NAICS code 517111.

This acquisition will utilize a Small Business Reserve, wherein the Government will reserve a minimum of 2 awards for each of the following categories: 8(a), HUBZone, Women-Owned Small Businesses, Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Businesses, and Small Businesses not in a socioeconomic program. In addition to otherwise meeting the requirements of a “qualifying offeror”, awardees under the Small Business Reserve must qualify as a Small Business (and for the specific Concern, as applicable) under the NAICS 517111 and must maintain that status to receive orders set aside for competition exclusively for Small Businesses or for their specific Concern.

1.2. Rejection of Unreasonable Proposals

The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unreasonable in terms of program commitments, including contract terms and conditions when compared to Government requirements, such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program.

1.3. Proposal Requirements, Terms, and Conditions

Section M, Page 2 of 12

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 and subfactors to be eligible for the IDIQ. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the proposal may result in the Offeror being removed from consideration for the IDIQ. Any exceptions to the solicitation’s terms and conditions must be fully explained and justified.

1.4. Evaluation Factors for Award

Offerors will be first evaluated according to the contents of Volume 1 and Volume 2. If found acceptable according to the criteria in this section, the Government will evaluate Volumes 3 and

4. If Volume 1 and/or 2 is/are found unacceptable according to the criteria in this section, the evaluation will cease, and the Government will not evaluate Volumes 3 or 4; the Offeror will not be eligible for award.

Volume Element ID Evaluation Page Limit

Volume 1 Information - Contracting Information 1 Volume 2 Factor 1 Prior Experience Attachment

Factor 2 Facility Clearance 1

Volume 3 Factor 3 Technical Proposal 50

Subfactor 1 Global Management Support Plan - Subfactor 2 Task Order Support Plan -

Volume 4 Factor 4 Small Business Participation Attachment Table 1: Proposal Organization

1.5. Relative Importance

1.6. All factors/subfactors are of equal importance and all must be rated as ‘Acceptable’ to qualify for award.

1.7. Evaluation Methodology

The Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated based on the criteria established and identified in Section L and M.

2. Evaluation of Factors 1 and 2

Factors 1 and 2 will be scored on an acceptable/unacceptable basis according to the details defined below. A rating of “Unacceptable” on Factors 1 or 2 will render the Offer ineligible to proceed to and thus ineligible for the IDIQ, with no further evaluation accomplished by the Government.

2.1. Volume 1: Information – Contract Information

The Government will verify the information provided.

2.2. Volume 2: Factor 1 – Prior Experience

This factor will be rated on an “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” basis. This factor assesses whether the Offeror has experience performing similar efforts, as submitted using the Prior Experience Scorecard (PES) and the associated References (Attachment J-3).

Section M, Page 3 of 12

The Government will review the Offeror’s submitted Prior Experience Scorecard to ensure it has been completed.

If the Offeror proposes a PES which features a Total Score of 17 or below or features a Task Range Score of less than 4, the Offeror’s prior experience will not be validated by the Government and the Offeror will receive a rating of “Unacceptable”.

To receive a rating of “Acceptable”, the Government-validated Total Score identified on the PES must be 18 or higher and the Government-validated Task Range Score must be 4.

If the Government-validated PES has a Total Score of 17 or below, the Offeror will receive a rating of “Unacceptable”. Additionally, the Offeror’s experience, in sum, must include all 4 Tasks. If a Government-validated PES has a Total Score that meets the minimum but the Task Range Score is less than 4, the Offeror will receive a rating of “Unacceptable”.

2.2.1. Types of Contracts Considered

References must have been contracts, to include Call Orders, Task Order, Purchase Orders;

experiences presented that merely reference an agreement or overarching vehicle will not be considered. The value of the contract (including modifications to date and inclusive of all options, exercised or not) must have been $250,000 per year (or per project, as applicable) or greater.

Example: A Reference that is an Indefinite Delivery Indefinity Quantity contract with a $400 million ceiling will not be considered, but Task Order valued at $1 million would be.

Example: A Reference that is for four years of service at $80,000 per year would have a total value (inclusive of all options) of $320,000, but since the annual value of the service is less than $250,000, it will not be considered.

Example: A Reference that is for a project to revitalize the infrastructure on a college campus will take 18 months to complete and is valued at $300,000. Since the Reference is for a single project (rather than annual services) and the value of the project is greater than $250,000, it would be considered.

2.2.2. Recency of Experience

References must have performed any time between 1 October 2018 and 31 March 2023.

Example: A Reference where the Offeror was performing between 30 March 2018 and 1 October 2018 would be considered as the one day of performance (1 October) falls within the range of recency, whereas if performance ended on 30 September 2018, it would not.

Example: A Reference where the Offeror started performance on 31 March 2023 and will run through 31 December 2023 would be considered as the one day of performance (31 March) falls within the range of recency, whereas if performance began on 1 April, it

Section M, Page 4 of 12 would not.

2.2.3. Experience of the Offeror

References must be for work the Offeror was responsible for either as a prime contractor or as a subcontractor. The experience of other subcontractors on the effort, even if all subcontractors fell under the management of the same prime contractor, will not be considered a Reference attributable to the Offeror.

Example: A Reference where the Offeror was a prime contractor on an effort, and had subcontractors performing Tasks 1, 2, and 3, will be considered as an experience covering Tasks 1, 2, and 3.

Example: A Reference where the Offeror performed Task 1 as a subcontractor, and Tasks 2, 3, and 4 were accomplished by other subcontractors, the experience will only be considered as an experience for Task 1.

2.2.4. Experience of Partners and Prospective Subcontractors

References from prospective subcontractors with whom the Offeror does not have a Small Business Teaming Arrangement will not be considered a Reference attributable to the Offeror.

For Offerors with any Small Business Teaming Arrangement as defined by FAR 52.207-6, or Offerors with a small business Protégé and an other-than-small Mentor forming a Mentor- Protégé arrangement, References from each member of the formal partnership will be considered as an Attributable Partner or Attributable Subcontractor, according to the following:

Members or Partners of Joint Ventures, to include Mentor-Protégé arrangements:

References of performance from each of the members or partners of the Joint Venture will be considered in their sum as Attributable Partners, as will any experience of the Joint Venture (to include Mentor-Protégé arrangements) itself.

Example: A Joint Venture where Member 1 (or the Mentor) providing two References that cover Tasks 1 and 2, and Member 2 (or the Protégé) providing two additional References that cover Tasks 2 and 3, will be considered as the Offeror providing four References across Tasks 1, 2, and 3.

Prospective subcontractors for Offerors with Small Business Teaming Arrangements with those subcontractors: References of performance from each of the proposed subcontractors will be considered for the Offeror.

Example: An Offeror with a Small Business Teaming arrangement providing two References performed by those Attributable Subcontractors that cover Tasks 1, 2, and 3 will be considered as the Offeror providing four experiences that cover Tasks 1, 2, and 3.

2.2.5. Reference Quality

References will not be evaluated for quality, but References that resulted in a termination for cause or default will not be considered.

Section M, Page 5 of 12

2.2.6. Definition of Experience Tasks

To determine whether the Offeror’s experience will be considered, the following definitions will be used in validating the experience. In these definitions, “the Offeror” refers to the Offeror and their properly attributable partners and prospective subcontractors, in accordance with paragraphs 2.2.3 and 2.2.4.

Task 1 – Network Health Monitoring: The Offeror performed network health monitoring, such as proactively identifying problem points, identifying network inefficiencies, and/or identifying potential improvements within the network and recommending solutions to resolve or capture those, to meet and sustain identified performance thresholds, for a network of at least 1,000 active users.

Experience must meet each qualifying aspect: The Offeror must have been performing network health monitoring AND the network must have been of at least 1,000 active users.

Task 2 – Modernization: The Offeror performed infrastructure modernization or enhancement, such as fiber optic cabling installation and/or replacement, and/or installation of network hardware, where the performance involved infrastructure spanning at least 5 different (physically separated) facilities.

infrastructure modernization or enhancement AND the performance involved infrastructure spanning at least 5 different (physically separated) facilities.

Task 3 – Network Design: The Offeror performed network design and architecture development for a network that accommodates at least 1,000 active users.

network design and architecture development AND the network must accommodate at least 1,000 active users.

Task 4 – Network Operation: The Offeror operated a network for a minimum of 8 continuous months that supports at least 1,000 active users.

Experience must meet each qualifying aspect: The Offeror must have been operating a network, AND must have been doing so for a minimum of 8 continuous months, AND that network must support at least 1,000 active users.

2.2.7. Experience Validation

The Government will validate each Reference to ensure they meet the criteria of paragraphs 2.2.1 through 2.2.6. If validation finds that a Reference does not meet the criteria or the Government cannot validate an Reference submitted, it will not be considered for the Government-validated Total Score or Task Range Score.

Section M, Page 6 of 12

2.2.8. PES Scoring Summary

The table below summarizes examples regarding whether the Offeror’s prior experience will be considered to meet the requirements of the solicitation.

Description

Offeror’s Proposal

Explanation Total Score Task Range

Score Does Not Meet 17 4 Offeror’s proposed PES has a Total Score below 18.

Does Not Meet 18 3 Offeror’s proposed PES has a Task Range Score below 4.

Description

Government Validation

Explanation Total Score Task Range

Score Does Not Meet 17 4 Government-validated Total Score is below 18.

Does Not Meet 18 3 Government-validated Task Score Range is below 4.

Meets 18 4 Government-validated Total Score is 18 or higher and the Government-validated Task Score Range is 4.

Table 2: Factor 1 – Prior Experience Rating Examples

Rating Definition

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation

Table 3: Factor 1 – Prior Experience Rating Ratings

2.3. Volume 2: Factor 2 – Facility Clearance

whether the Offeror currently holds a sufficient facility clearance to process classified information as applicable to this acquisition. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s current facility clearance in National Industrial Security System (NISS) using the CAGE code provided in the Proposal Cover Sheet.

If the Offeror holds a current security clearance of at least “Secret” as validated by NISS, then it will have met the requirements of the solicitation. Otherwise, it will not have met the requirements of the solicitation.

Table 4: Factor 2 – Facility Clearance Ratings

3. Evaluation of Factors 3 and 4

Offerors that are rated “Acceptable” in both Factor 1 and Factor 2 will be evaluated for Factors 3 and 4. If an Offeror is rated “Unacceptable” in Factor 1 or Factor 2 (or both), the evaluation of their proposal will cease, evaluation of Factors 3 and 4 will not be conducted, and they will not be eligible for award.

Section M, Page 7 of 12

3.1. Volume 3: Factor 3 – Technical Proposals

This factor will be rating on an “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” basis. If one or both subfactors receive a rating of “Unacceptable”, the entire factor will receive rating of “Unacceptable”.

Used throughout this factor, an “explanation” means a response which demonstrates a working knowledge of the topic, and a “plan” (whether used generally or for a specifically named plan) means a formal strategy or approach to address the topic.

3.1.1. Factor 3: Subfactor 1 – Global Management Support Plan

This subfactor will be rated on an “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” basis. This subfactor assesses the Offeror’s understanding of the requirements for implementing a Global Management Support Plan (GMSP) that covers the scope and scale of the BIM IDIQ Performance Work Statement.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s GMSP for viability, comprehension, clarity and completeness to determine whether the plan is acceptable.

Viability considers the likelihood of the Offeror’s GMSP and strategies therein of being successful. Comprehension considers whether the Offeror demonstrates, through their explanations, that their understanding of processes represents effective working knowledge of the related topics. Clarity considers whether the plan clearly addresses all required aspects.

Completeness considers whether the plan addresses all the following:

a. A Capability Statement and Operational Plan to demonstrate how the Offeror will handle the breadth and scale of transformational tasks across multiple locations with minimal risks to the Government.

b. For teaming arrangements, a breakout of the responsibilities of the team members.

c. A Staff Management Plan which addresses:

1. The approach for personnel recruitment, training, and retaining qualified personnel.

2. The approach for obtaining, maintaining, and managing security clearances of personnel.

3. The approach to provide personnel to support multiple geographical CONUS and OCONUS, to include how travel and/or telework technology would be utilized to maximize the use of centralized Network Operations Centers (NOCs).

d. A Provisional Staffing Plan that demonstrates the ability to staff organizationally to support SAF CONUS and OCONUS base scalability.

e. A Professional Employee Compensation Plan which addresses how professional employees (as defined in 29 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 541) will be compensated, reflective of the understanding of the work that will be performed and how the compensation plan will be able to effectively obtain and retain professional employees.

Section M, Page 8 of 12

f. A Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) plan which addresses:

1. Evaluation, full examination, or implementation of its full spectrum supply chain.

2. Identification, assessment, planning, and mitigation of actual and potential threats vulnerabilities, and disruptions to the supply chain.

3. Application of supply chain protection and counterfeit protection.

4. Identification, assessment, planning, and mitigation of Cybersecurity SCRM (C-

SCRM).

g. A plan for assisting the Government with the Authority-to-Operate (ATO) process.

h. A plan for providing network service and maintenance at a global scale.

i. An explanation of how the Offeror will implement DAF CONUS and OCONUS base scalability where the Offeror shall address a feasible approach to execution at multiple locations throughout the life of the IDIQ for:

1. Task orders for a single base and respective Geographically Separated Units

(GSU)s.

2. Task orders for multiple bases and respective GSUs.

j. A demonstration of understanding and knowledge regarding applicable bilateral international Status of Forces Agreements (SOFAs).

k. An explanation of how the Offeror’s systems and procedures adhere to Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) audits and verification of Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) compliant accounting system. Any changes made to these business systems and/or the CAS Disclosure Statement subsequent to the date of the provided approvals shall be disclosed. The explanation must include a summary including an introduction, overview, index, and evidence of approval for each business system including but not limited to Estimating, Purchasing, Accounting, and Earned Value Management (EVM) and the Offeror's Cost Accounting Standards Disclosure Statement.

If the Offeror’s GMSP is viable, demonstrates an effective comprehension of the related topics, is clear, and addresses all of the details of the plan identified in Section M, Section 3.1.1, then it will have met the requirements of the solicitation. If it is missing any of those aspects, it will not have met the requirements of the solicitation.

Table 5: Factor 3, Subfactor 1 – Global Management Support Plan Ratings

3.1.2. Factor 3: Subfactor 2 – Task Order Support Plan

This subfactor will be rated on an “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” basis. This subfactor assesses the Offeror’s Task Order Support Plan (TOSP) in response to the Sample Base Prompt (Attachment J-4) and the plan’s technical, programmatic, and administrative solutions.

Section M, Page 9 of 12

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s TOSP for viability, comprehension, clarity and completeness to determine whether the plan is acceptable.

Viability considers the likelihood of the Offeror’s TOSP and strategies therein of being successful. Comprehension considers whether the Offeror demonstrates, through their explanations, that their understanding of processes represents effective working knowledge of the related topics. Clarity considers whether the plan clearly addresses all required aspects.

Completeness considers whether the plan addresses all the following:

a. An explanation of how the Offeror will source qualified personnel.

b. An explanation of the considerations and processes the Offeror accounts for regarding bilateral international Status of Forces Agreements (SOFAs) as applicable to the Sample Base Prompt.

c. The Offeror’s quality control plan that addresses:

1. Scheduling of services.

2. How the Offeror intends to effectively implement equipment management, respond to emergencies, hazardous materials, and safety programs.

3. How the Offeror will comply with SLAs.

4. How the Offeror will receive notification of performance problems.

5. How the Offeror will respond to problems and deficiencies.

6. How the Offeror will handle challenging problems.

7. How the offeror will perform inspections and the frequency of the inspections.

8. The Offeror’s plan for Comprehensive Threat Analysis for physical and cyber threats.

d. A plan to increase reduction in manpower for IT Asset Management, Endpoint Management, Security Configuration Management, Vulnerability Management, Threat Detection & Remediation, Integration with Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) & Analytics, Program Management, Engineering Services, and Transition Services.

e. A plan to comply with Continuity of Operations Plan and Concept of

Operations of the DAF.

f. A plan for how the Offeror will create and manage an overarching Master Schedule that sequences all required activities in the BIM IDIQ PWS (Attachment J-6).

g. A plan for how the offeror will manage scheduling, administration, management, and execution of the required services in the BIM IDIQ PWS (Attachment J-6).

h. The offeror’s plan to execute the following phases in performing on the TO:

Section M, Page 10 of 12

1. Phase 1 – The Offeror’s approach to conducting a site survey, to include:

A. Labor skill mix involved.

B. Equipment/software used.

C. Timelines and durations.

D. Use of subcontractors and the roles of team members (as applicable where the Offeror is using teaming arrangements).

2. Phase 2 – The Offeror’s approach to operating the Government’s network, to include:

A. Labor skill mix involved with normal operations.

B. Labor skill mix involved with contingency operations.

C. Use of subcontractors and the roles of team members (as applicable where the Offeror is using teaming arrangements).

D. List and quantity of equipment provided and/or used by the offeror to operate the network.

3. Phase 3 – The Offeror’s approach to delivering a design and architecture to the Government, to include how the Offeror will coordinate with the Government to ultimately provide an acceptable design and architecture of a modernized network, to include:

A. Labor skill mix involved.

B. Use of subcontractors and the roles of team members (as applicable where the Offeror is using teaming arrangements).

C. Unique spectrum and connection challenges.

D. Notional architecture that meets the SLA requirements identified in the

BIM IDIQ PWS (Attachment J-6).

E. A list, including quantities, of the equipment required to implement the architecture.

F. Clear articulation of how the notional solution increases network efficiency, network effectiveness, quality of service, and quality of experience.

4. Phase 4 – The Offeror’s approach to installing and otherwise implementing the accepted design, to include:

A. Labor skill mix involved with normal operations.

B. Labor skill mix involved with contingency operations.

C. Use of subcontractors and the roles of team members (as applicable where

D. Timelines and durations.

5. Phase 5 – The Offeror’s approach to operating the modernized network, to include:

A. List of quantity and equipment provided and/or used by the offeror to operate the network.

B. Labor skill mix involved with normal operations.

Section M, Page 11 of 12

C. Labor skill mix involved with contingency operations.

D. Use of subcontractors and the roles of team members (as applicable where

If the Offeror’s TOSP is viable, demonstrates an effective comprehension of the related topics, is clear, and addresses all of the details of the plan as identified in Section M, Paragraph 3.1.2, then it will have met the requirements of the solicitation. If it is missing any of those aspects, it will not have met the requirements of the solicitation.

Table 6: Factor 3, Subfactor 2 – Task Order Support Plan Ratings

3.2. Volume 4: Factor 4 – Small Business Participation Commitment whether the Offeror’s ability to meet Small Business Participation Commitment requirements.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD) (Attachment J-5) and the documentation supporting the Offeror’s ability to meet Small Business Participation Commitment requirements on other contracts.

The Government will evaluate the SBPCD for the following:

a. A signature from the Offeror’s authorized individual.

b. Relevant supporting documentation to demonstrate substantive commitment to small business firms, such as, letters of commitment, Joint Ventures, mentor/protégé agreements, or other demonstrations of commitment (i.e., binding commitments will become enforceable/contractual requirements).

c. A commitment to achieve at least 30.00% of the total value of the IDIQ to be provided by Small Businesses (through any combination of Prime Contractor and subcontractor efforts), as indicated by their input for item 2 in Table 1 of the

SBPCD.

d. A commitment to achieve at least 5.00% of the total value of the IDIQ to be provided by any combination of Small Disadvantaged Businesses (through any combination of Prime Contractor and subcontractor efforts), as indicated by their input for item 3 in Table 1 of the SBPCD.

e. A list of at least 5 Small Businesses, to include at least 1 Small Disadvantaged

Business active in the 8(a) Business Development Program and at least 1 additional Small Business of any socioeconomic category, as indicated by their input in section 2B of the SBPCD.

Section M, Page 12 of 12

Note: The work to be performed directly by a small business prime offeror will also be evaluated as Small Business Participation. The Small Business Participation Commitment Document will become part of the resultant contract.

The Government will also evaluate the Offeror’s ability to meet Small Business Participation commitments through the documentation they have provided as well as through the Offeror’s previous efforts as reported in Government systems (such as CPARS, eSRS, etc.). The evaluation will consider the extent to which the offeror complied with requirements of FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns and the extent to which the offeror complied with requirements of FAR 52.219-9 Small Business Subcontracting Plan for those contracts (when applicable).

Regarding the Small Business Subcontracting Plan As stated in Section L, if required to submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan (SBSP), the plan will not be included in the evaluation to determine whether the factor is rated “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable”. However, in the case that an Offeror is found to be an apparent awardee, the Offeror’s SBSP must be determined to be acceptable prior to receipt of award as a matter of contractor responsibility.

If the Offeror’s Small Business Participation Commitment Document is complete, complies with the requirements established regarding approach and understanding of small business objectives is adequate, then it will have met the requirements of the solicitation. If it is missing any of those aspects, it will not have met the requirements of the solicitation.

Table 7: Factor 4 – Small Business Participation Commitment Ratings