Atch 9_Eval Criteria_NetOps SB.doc

PART IV- REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD_________________________________________________

M002 EVALUATION CRITERIA (JAN 2010)

M1.0 SOURCE SELECTION

Section M establishes how the Government will make its selection for award, the number of awards contemplated, and how the various considerations and criteria interrelate. The results of the evaluation are considered by the SSA to determine which proposal(s) represents the best value consistent with a Performance Price Tradeoff (PPT) methodology, and should be selected for award(s).

M1.1 BASIS OF CONTRACT AWARD

The Government will conduct a small business competition utilizing the Performance Price Tradeoff (PPT) source selection procedures, with technical proposals, to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision consistent with the PPT methodology. This is a competitive source selection conducted in accordance with Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS) 5315.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by Informational Guidance (IG) 5315.101-1, Performance Price Tradeoffs, in which competing offerors’ past performance history will be evaluated as significantly more important than cost or price; however, cost/price will contribute substantially to the selection decision. These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FARSite, http://farsite.hill.af.mil. Tradeoffs will be made only between price and past performance among those offerors who have been determined technically acceptable. Award will be made to the offerors who are 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 and consistent with paragraph M1.2.

The Government may award to a higher rated, higher priced offeror where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the SSA reasonably determines that the Past Performance of the higher priced, technically acceptable offeror outweighs the cost or price difference. While the Government source selection evaluation team and the 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.

The evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

A. Technical Acceptability. Initially, the Government technical evaluation team will evaluate the technical proposals on a pass/fail basis, assigning ratings of Acceptable, Reasonably Susceptible of Being Made Acceptable, or Unacceptable. A proposal is rated "acceptable" when the evaluation team determines that all technical criteria have been met by the offeror's proposal. A proposal is rated "reasonably susceptible to being made acceptable" when the proposal does not clearly meet some specified technical criteria necessary for acceptable contract performance, but there is reason to believe that through minor revisions, an acceptable proposal could result. For award without discussions these proposals are considered “unacceptable”. A proposal is rated "unacceptable" when the evaluation team determines that one or more technical criteria have not been met by the offeror's proposal and could not be met without significant modification to the proposal. The proposals will be evaluated against the following subfactors:

Subfactor 1: Quality Processes

Subfactor 2: Metadata Environments Development Subfactor 3: Network Management and Network Defense (NM/ND) Cost

Reimbursable Sample Task Order

Subfactor 4: CITS Information Transport Systems (ITS) Firm Fixed Price Sample

Task Order

Subfactor 5: Management Approach

B. Performance Confidence Assessment. The Performance Confidence Assessment Group (PCAG) will conduct an in-depth review of all Technically Acceptable and Reasonably Susceptible of Being Made

Acceptable offers. The PCAG will evaluate all recent and relevant past performance data provided and obtained as referenced in M3.2, to determine the quality of the work performed. The result of that evaluation will lead to a confidence rating for each offeror.

C. Cost/Price Evaluation. The Government will rank all Technically Acceptable and Reasonably Susceptible of Being Made Acceptable offers by Total Evaluated Price (TEP), including option prices. The price evaluation will document the reasonableness of the Firm Fixed Price sample Task Order (TO), the fully burdened Labor Hour rates, and the proposed Total Evaluated Price (TEP). The price evaluation will also document the realism and reasonableness of the Cost Reimbursable sample TO.

D. The Government reserves the right to award a contract without discussions with respective offerors. IAW FAR 15.306(a)(2), if award will be made without conducting discussions, offerors may be given the opportunity to clarify certain aspects of proposals (e.g., the relevance of an offeror’s past performance information and adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond) or to resolve minor or clerical errors.

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.

M1.2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award six to nine (6-9) Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contracts for NETCENTS-2 NetOps & Infrastructure Solutions, however, the Government reserves the right to make more, less or no award at all as determined to be in the best interest of the government.

M1.3 Correction Potential of Proposals

The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the correction potential of the proposal. The judgment of such correction potential is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of an offeror's proposal not meeting the Government's objectives is not considered correctable, the offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range.

M1.4 Solicitation Requirements Unless exceptions are identified and supported as required by the last sentence of this paragraph, by submission of its offer, the offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors. All technically acceptable offers shall be treated equally except for their costs/prices and performance records. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale.

M2.0 TECHNICAL ACCEPTABILITY

M2.1 Subfactor 1 – Quality Processes

The Government will evaluate evidence provided in proposals for assurance that the prime contractor's engineering processes are certified at ISO 9001:2000 or ISO 9001:2008 or ISO/IEC 20000, or appraised by an SEI-authorized lead appraiser of being at CMMI Development Level 2 (or higher) using the Software Engineering Institute's (SEI) Standard CMMI Appraisal Method for Process Improvement (SCAMPI) Method A, or are extensively documented to achieve a comparable level of quality and are routinely and verifiably followed. This certification must be held at the prime offeror’s organizational level performing the contract.

If not ISO certified or SEI appraised, acceptable documentation shall describe all salient Systems Engineering processes, including requirements management, configuration management, development of specifications, definition and illustration of architectures and interfaces, design, test and evaluation/verification and validation, deployment and maintenance. If a quality process other than the required ISO certification or SEI appraisal is proposed, the Government will evaluate the evidence of comparable processes to include incorporation of automated processes and tools that support the offeror's engineering processes.

The Government will evaluate (confirm) the offeror's certification(s), appraisals or comparable processes based on documentation provided in the initial proposal. The requirement is met when the offeror provides documented proof; copies of certificates; appraisals; or acceptable descriptive documentation as outlined above.

M 2.2 Subfactor 2 –Metadata Environments Development The Government will evaluate the offeror’s capability to develop metadata environments according to the offeror’s approach to the development of the four critical components of metadata environments presented in Section L, para. L4.2.4. The Government will evaluate the acceptability of the approach according to the effectiveness of methodology and processes, the adequacy of tools and/or techniques, the technical competencies demonstrated, and the clarity and accuracy of the offeror’s understanding of the subject critical components.

M2.3 Subfactor 3 - Network Management and Network Defense (NM/ND) Cost Reimbursable Sample Task Order

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s capability to accomplish the work in the sample task order summarized in Section L, para. L4.2.5 and provided in detail in Section J, Attachment 20 of the RFP. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s response to ensure it demonstrates an understanding of the work to be performed and proposes an effective solution. The Government will evaluate the proposal to ensure that it represents an appropriate mix of labor categories, reasonableness of labor hours, and an understanding of the knowledge, abilities, skills (to include skill level) and products (if additional are proposed) needed to meet the requirements identified in the task order. The Government will evaluate the acceptability of the approach according to the effectiveness of methodology and processes, the adequacy of tools (if additional are proposed) and/or techniques, the technical competencies demonstrated, and the clarity and accuracy of the offeror’s understanding of the subject critical components.

M2.4 Subfactor 4 - CITS Information Transport Systems (ITS) Firm Fixed Price Sample Task Order

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s solution for accomplishing the Sample Task Order summarized in Section L, para. L4.2.6 and provided in detail in Section J, Attachment 14 of the RFP. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposal to ensure it demonstrates an understanding of the work to be performed and proposes an effective solution. The Government will evaluate the proposal to ensure that it represents an understanding of the knowledge, abilities, skills (to include skill level), and products (if additional are proposed) needed to meet the requirements identified in the task order.

M2.5 Subfactor 5 – Management Approach The Government will evaluate the offeror’s management processes ensuring services provide an overarching, executable solution set, consistent with their proposed approach.

This includes:

a. Demonstrate a staffing approach that ensures the offeror can recruit highly qualified employees for the task orders, including methods for employee accession, retention, and professional growth; and the soundness and quality of the offeror’s proposed process, ensuring continuity of services during personnel absences due to sickness, leave and voluntary or involuntary termination from employment such that impact to the Government is minimal.

b. Demonstrate the methodology/approach for providing worldwide support, including the offeror’s approach to bidding on and responding to task orders involving OCONUS locations; to include personnel; and timelines for fulfilling task orders associated with the type of work described in the NetOps & Infrastructure Solutions PWS.

M3.0 PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR

M3.1 General Information

Under the Past Performance factor, the Performance Confidence Assessment in accordance with AFFARS MP5315.3, paragraph 5.5.2 represents the evaluation of an offeror's past work record to assess the Government's confidence in the offeror's probability of successfully performing as proposed. The past performance evaluation will be accomplished by reviewing aspects of an offeror's recent and relevant past performance to determine quality of efforts while focusing on and targeting performance which is relevant to Metadata Environments, Network Management and Network Defense, Network Management and Enterprise Services, Information Transport Systems, Management and Cost.

M3.2 Evaluation

The Performance Confidence Assessment Group (PCAG) will conduct an in-depth review and evaluation of all recent performance data provided and obtained from other sources identified below in this section, to determine how relevant the work performed under those efforts is to the proposed effort. The PCAG will verify past performance data identified by offerors in their proposals and obtain additional past performance data, if available, from other sources. The PCAG may consider the offeror’s, including subcontractors, joint ventures, and past performance in aggregate, in addition to an effort (contract) by effort basis. Commercial and Government past performance will be treated on an equal basis.

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

Contract(s) identified in the Federal Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) will be evaluated individually. Higher relevancy may be assigned to efforts that are most similar to the stated requirements. Past performance information may be obtained through, but not limited to, information obtained from the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting Systems (CPARS), similar systems of other Government departments and agencies, questionnaires tailored to the circumstances of this acquisition (see Section J, Attachment 12), Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) channels, interviews with program managers and contracting officers, site visits and other sources known to the Government including commercial sources.

M3.3 Assessment Ratings

The Past Performance evaluation considers the offeror’s demonstrated record of performance in providing products and services that meet Government needs. Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on the quality of the work performed (as described in M3.6 and Table 3) and the relevancy (as described in M3.5 and Table 2) to the acquisition. Each offeror will receive one of the performance confidence ratings described in AFFARS Mandatory Procedures 5315.3, paragraph 5.5.2.2, also shown below in Table 1. Offeror’s without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available 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. Additionally, efforts showing a sustained track record of performance will have a greater impact on the overall Performance Confidence Assessment. Likewise, a more relevant past record of favorable performance may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance.

Past performance citations that cover more of the relevancy criteria areas are preferred over those that cover less. The offeror should provide as many citations as possible covering as many relevancy criteria areas as possible to have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment.

The offeror should reference efforts that have been performed at locations worldwide to have the greatest impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment. Other references will be accepted and may be considered but those performed at locations worldwide are preferred.

The Government will not use in its assessment a past/present contract where performance cannot be verified through the customer of that contract.

Table 1: Performance Confidence Assessment

M3.4 Recency

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. However, only that portion of the performance that has been performed since the beginning of that window, to include any performance that continues through to contract award, may be evaluated. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

M3.5 Relevancy

A relevancy determination of the offeror's past performance will be made. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the offeror, or significant subcontractor (as defined in Section L5.1.1) whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The Government is not bound by the offeror's opinion of relevancy. Higher relevancy will be given to those efforts that are most similar to the stated requirements. The following criteria will be used to determine relevancy, however all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered:

Table 2: Relevancy Degree

Criteria considered for magnitude and complexity will include, but is not limited to, the criteria listed below.

Metadata Environments (Citation shall be at the task order or stand-alone contract level) Relevant PWS paragraph is 3.1.1.4. For this area work performed to DDMS 2.0 or greater is acceptable.

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s past efforts for:

a. Provided services and solutions that help generate and manage Metadata and Metadata Environments (MDEs). Addressed experience with eXtensible Markup Language (XML)-based metadata catalogs.

b. Referenced efforts designing and implementing a metadata population service for assigning metadata values to discoverable assets, query processing, relevance calculation, and result presentation services..

c. Shown experience creating runtime metadata registries for storing semantic vocabulary artifacts.

Network Management and Network Defense (NM/ND) (Citation shall be at the task order or stand-alone contract level) Relevant PWS paragraphs are 3.2.1.1 GIG Enterprise Management and 3.2.1.2 GIG Network Defense.

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s past efforts for:

a. Addressed Security Management efforts that have provided rapid identification and response to anomalous activity, network probe and exploitation efforts, and implement appropriate defensive actions or countermeasures.

b. Provided services and solutions that enable network command and control. Including Configuration Management, Accounting Management and Fault and Performance Management to include trend analysis and correlation of network incidents, outages, and degradation events.

c. Demonstrated experience in rapid implementation of security countermeasures by facilitating the coordination of network restoration priorities and actions after an intrusion or adverse network event.

Network Management and Enterprise Services (Citation shall be at the task order or stand-alone contract level) Relevant PWS paragraph is 3.2.1.6 Network Management and Enterprise Services.

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s past efforts for:

a. Provided services and solutions to accomplish network boundary management and control such as that needed to establish and secure a corporate intranet.

b. Provided services and solutions to accomplish cross-domain security.

Information Transport Systems (Citation shall be at the task order or stand-alone contract level) Relevant PWS paragraphs are 3.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2.

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s past efforts for:

a. Provided integrated engineering, installation, and maintenance of a high bandwidth/high-performance survivable fiber optic backbone to include “wired” and “wireless” networks

b. Provided information transport capability that includes data, voice, video, sensor and imagery traffic.

Management (Citation shall be at the task order or stand-alone contract level) The Government will evaluate the offeror’s past efforts for:

a. Addressed the contractor’s overall ability to manage the contract to include the contractor’s ability to achieve and maintain customer satisfaction, management of subcontractors, and their ability to comply with the terms and conditions of the contract.

b. Demonstrated their ability to staff appropriately to include staffing the right number of people, skill levels required to accomplish the mission, and the ability to retain.

Cost (Citation shall be at the task order or stand-alone contract level) The Government will evaluate the offeror’s past efforts for:

a. Demonstrated their ability to meet forecasted costs and perform within contract costs.

The Netops solicitation anticipates award of contracts with labor hour contract line items (CLINs). and various types of fixed price and cost reimbursement CLINs.Therefore, any past performance information demonstrating experience in controlling costs for any of these contract types will be considered relevant for purposes of evaluating past performance in the cost area. For the purpose of determining relevancy, any contract type that may be awarded under the NetOps solicitation will be evaluated equally for relevancy. Any contract type that will not be awarded under the NetOps solicitation, but submitted for consideration, will not receive a Highly Relevant rating.

b. The sufficiency and timeliness of cost reporting and their ability to alert the Government of any unforeseen costs before they occur.

M3.6 Performance Quality Assessment

The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts. The quality assessment consists of an evaluation of the past performance questionnaire responses, PPIRS information, Contractor Performance Assessment Reports (CPARS), interviews with Government customers and fee determining officials and, if applicable, commercial clients. It may include interviews with DCMA officials or other sources known to the Government. The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element. 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. Offerors will be allowed to respond to adverse information, as defined above, to which they have not previously had the opportunity to respond.

Once the offeror’s contract performance is determined to be recent and relevant the following rating definitions spelled out in Table 3, Performance Quality Assessment, will be used to evaluate overall performance.

Table 3: Performance Quality Assessment

M4.0 COST/PRICE FACTOR

M4.1 Cost/Price Evaluation

The offeror’s cost/price proposal will be evaluated for award purposes based upon the Total Evaluated Price (TEP). The TEP is the sum of the following prices: the firm fixed price sample task order, probable cost for a cost reimbursable sample task order, and a submission for Total Labor-Hour Price consistent with paragraph M4.1.1. The evaluation will include the base and all option periods, as applicable within the task orders. Evaluation of option(s) shall not obligate the Government to exercise said option(s).

M4.1.1 Maximum Labor Hour (LH) Rates BEQ Worksheet

The offeror’s Total Labor-Hour Price will be developed from the Maximum Labor-Hour Rates BEQ Worksheet. The Maximum Labor-Hour Rates BEQ Worksheet reflects a BEQ for evaluation purposes. The categories on the worksheet represent the expected most frequently used labor categories for AF NetOps from NETCENTS-1. The BEQ hours are proportional for each labor category. The Total Labor-Hour Price will be developed, for evaluation purposes, by the following steps:

Step 1: For each labor category, the proposed rates for each year (including options) will be multiplied by the category BEQ hours.

Step 2: The results from Step 1 for each year (including options) will be summed together to develop the TEP.

NOTE: The proposed labor hour rates in the Maximum Labor Hour Rates BEQ Worksheet will be transferred into Clause H138 which will be contractually binding as maximums.

M4.2 Reasonableness and Realism Assessments

M4.2.1 Cost/Price Reasonableness

The afore-defined components of the TEP will be assessed using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404-1, 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 15.404-1. For additional information see FAR 31.201-3.

The government will evaluate the reasonableness of the offeror’s fully priced solution (as contained in the CITS Pricing Model) to the firm fixed price ITS sample task order. The price will represent the base year price, and will, for evaluation purposes, be assumed to be representative of the firm fixed price ITS type of effort that will be performed each option year. Therefore, the offeror’s base year price will be escalated by the Government using the Consumer Price Index for general inflation for 2011-19 to represent pricing of all option periods.

M4.2.2 Cost/Price Realism

The Government will evaluate the realism of each offeror’s sample cost reimbursable task order. This will include an evaluation of the extent to which proposed costs are sufficient for the work to be performed, reflective of a clear understanding of the requirements, and consistent with the unique methods of performance described in the offeror’s technical proposal (FAR 15.404-1(d)(1)). A cost realism analysis will be performed on the cost-reimbursable sample task order to determine the probable cost of performance for each offeror. The probable cost may differ from the proposed cost and will reflect the Government’s best estimate of the cost of the task that is most likely to result from the offeror’s proposal. The probable cost shall be used for purposes of evaluation to determine the best value. The probable cost is determined by adjusting each offeror’s proposed cost, and fee when appropriate, to reflect any additions or reductions in cost elements to realistic levels based on the results of the cost realism analysis.

Unrealistically low proposed prices, may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition either on the basis that the offeror does not understand the requirements or the offeror has made an unrealistic proposal.

M4.3 Unbalanced Pricing

Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and could result in payment of unreasonably high prices. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one or more items is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. The Government will analyze offers to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to separately priced items. Offers that are determined to be unbalanced in any one of the three components of the TEP (FFP/CR/LH) will be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

M5.0 CONTRACT DOCUMENTATION

M5.1 PRE-AWARD SURVEY

The Government will conduct a pre-award survey (PAS) IAW FAR 9.106-4(a) as part of this source selection. The PAS will verify the adequacy of the contractor’s accounting system and the offeror’s financial capability. Results of the PAS will be evaluated as part of contractor responsibility and each offeror’s capability to meet the requirements of the solicitation.

M5.2 SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, completed representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale.

Section M FA8771-09-R-0019 Section J, Attachment 9