CIPS-Section M.pdf

Evaluation Criteria

1.0 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD. This source selection is a performance price tradeoff source selection conducted in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, as supplemented by the Defense FAR

Supplement (DFARS) 215.3, the Air Force FAR Supplement (AFFARS) 5315.3 and the Air Force Mandatory

Procedure (MP) 5315.3. These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FAR Site, http://farsite.hill.af.mil. The Government will select the offer representing the best value to the Government, based upon an assessment of the evaluation factors Mission Capabilities (Technical), Present/Past Performance, and Price.

To be eligible for award, the Offeror must be deemed responsible in accordance with FAR 9.104, as supplemented;

meet all requirements of the RFP; conform to all required terms and conditions; and include all required certifications. The Government seeks to award to the Offeror who provides an acceptable technical proposal, the best value of present/past performance, and price in meeting 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 substantial present/past performance of the higher priced

Offeror outweighs the price difference. The Government intends to award a contract without discussions with respective Offerors. The Government, however, reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest. While the Government source selection evaluation team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, this source selection process, by its nature, is subjective and, therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

2.0 EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS.

a. In evaluating proposals, the Government will select the proposal that is most advantageous to the Government.

To arrive at a decision, the SSA will assess each offer in accordance with the following evaluation factors:

Factor 1: Mission Capability

Subfactor 1: CMMI-Dev Maturity Level

Subfactor 2: Staffing Approach

Factor 2: Present/Past performance

Focus Area 1: System Administration and Development

Focus Area 2: System Architecture Design

Focus Area 3: Customer Service

Factor 3: Price

b. Relative Importance or Weighting of the Factors. The relative importance or weighting of each factor is as follows: Factor 2 (Present/Past Performance) is approximately of equal importance to Factor 3 (Price). To be considered for award, the technical proposal must meet minimum standards on an acceptable/unacceptable basis.

2.1 Factor 1—Mission Capabilities (Technical). Technical acceptability will be evaluated on all offers.

The technical evaluation provides an assessment of the Offeror’s demonstrated understanding and capability to meet the Government’s requirements and will be rated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis at the subfactor level. A failure in any technical subfactor will result in an unacceptable rating for the technical factor. Proposals shall be evaluated against the following subfactors:

Subfactor 1: Capability Maturity Model Integrated (CMMI)-Dev Maturity Level. This sub-factor is met when the

Offeror demonstrates a CMMI-Dev maturity level rating of 3 or higher with an appraisal that meets all of the following criteria:

(1) Conforms to the Appraisal Requirements for CMMI (ARC) document

(2) Defined as a Class A appraisal

(3) Performed by an approved Standard CMMI Appraisal Method for Process Improvement (SCAMPI)

Lead Appraiser http://farsite.hill.af.mil/

(4) Occurred within the last three years

Subfactor 2: Staffing Approach. This sub-factor is met when the Offeror presents an effective staffing and personnel management approach for the CIPS effort that meets the following criteria:

a. An organizational structure that provides qualified personnel resources, to include any subcontracting and teaming arrangements, in an organizational structure and labor categories with the experience, security clearance and minimum acceptable qualifications necessary.

b. A sound methodology for replacing personnel, or hiring additional personnel, on short notice

c. A sound methodology for training new personnel in processes, procedures, software tools, and system design parameters associated with this effort and providing continued training for existing staff.

2.2 Factor 2 - Present/Past Performance. The Present/Past Performance evaluation assesses the degree of confidence the Government has in an Offeror’s ability to perform the required services to meet users’ needs based on a demonstrated record of performance. An overall assessment of the Government’s confidence in the Offeror’s ability to fulfill the RFP requirements while meeting price, performance and schedule constraints will be made. The performance confidence assessment will be rated at an overall factor level. The Government intends to use both data provided by the Offeror and data obtained from other sources, including any combination of present/past performance information available. This may include data gathered from Offeror-provided references, and through the use of interviews. Furthermore, the Government may use data independently obtained from other governmental and commercial sources; other customers known to the Government; contractor performance evaluations (e.g.

Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) information, Present/past performance Information

Retrieval System (PPIRS) information, etc.); interviews with Government customers, and, if applicable, commercial clients; and any other source that may have relevant and useful information. Proposals shall be evaluated against the following Focus areas:

Focus Area 1: System Administration and Development. The Offeror shall demonstrate a background in enterprise system management, sustainment and development. Evaluation of this Focus Area will be based on experience meeting the following criteria:

(1) Experience with the following software applications:

JRE/JTE 1.6 Oracle 11G

MS visual Basic/C# Oracle Spatial

PKI Oracle Label Security

MS Team Foundation Server Oracle Geoserver

MS Visual Studio 2010

(2) Experience with Database and software backup and recovery processes and procedures.

(3) Experience with the Open Geospatial Consortium.

(4) Experience with Network Management, Administration and Security.

(5) Experience in identifying the software and hardware required to sustain, maintain and develop an enterprise system.

Focus Area 2: System Architecture Design. The Offeror shall demonstrate experience with, and expertise in, complex system architectures that include integrated hardware, operating systems, databases and applications.

Evaluation of this Focus Area shall be based on the following criteria:

(1) Expertise in the design, modification, and maintenance of integrated system architectures.

(2) Experience in integrating applications in order to provide a seamless interface to system users.

(3) Expertise in management of a system architecture with integrated Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) capabilities.

Focus Area 3: Customer Service. The Offeror shall demonstrate its experience in managing a help desk, providing user training, and account administration services for an enterprise system. Evaluation of this Focus area shall be based on the following criteria:

(1) Experience in providing and managing help desk to meet routine, extended hours and surge requirements staffed with personnel proficient in functionalities of existing and new applications.

(2) Experience in providing comprehensive training on current and new applications for system users.

Experience includes developing and maintaining training materials, coordinating and conducting training classes and providing proficient instructors for this subject matter.

(3) Experience in account administration and management for an enterprise system.

2.2.1 Recency Assessment. Only recent past performance information (PPI) will be evaluated. To be recent, the effort must have been performed during the past three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. On-going actions will be considered as recent so long as the effort has been performed for at least six (6) months.

Present/Past performance information that is not recent will not be evaluated for relevancy and quality.

2.2.2 Relevancy Assessment. The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of recent PPI obtained to determine relevancy in identified Focus Areas supporting operation, maintenance and support of an enterprise system comparable in scope to the CIPS system. Past performance includes that of the prime, joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s). In determining relevancy for Focus Areas presented on individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the Offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. A specific contract need not be relevant in all Focus Areas as relevancy will be determined at the Focus Area level. However, the quality of performance on contracts which are relevant in more than one Focus Area may be considered of more importance in the final confidence assessment. The Government is not bound by the Offeror’s opinion of relevancy. The Government will use the following degrees of relevancy when assessing recent, relevant contracts:

FOCUS AREA 1: SYSTEM ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT

DEGREE DESCRIPTION

RELEVANT (R) 1) Past/present contract effort involved much of the maintenance, sustainability, software, and database operations as defined in Factor 2

– Present/Past Performance Focus Area 1: System Administration and

Development and related to a system comparable to CIPS. A contracted effort will be considered comparable if it involved an Oracle based, enterprise system that was accessible over a WAN via a web interface. The system shall have included a GIS data capture and visualization capability, and shall have been PKI enabled. The system shall have had an active user base of at least 1,000 users.

2) The past/present contract effort shall have required the Offeror to develop, test and document at least two software releases each year.

SOMEWHAT RELEVANT (SR) 1) Past/present contract effort involved some of the maintenance, sustainability, software, and database operations as defined in Factor 2

– Present/Past Performance Focus Area 1: System Administration and

Development and related to a system somewhat comparable to CIPS. A contracted effort will be considered somewhat comparable if it involved an Oracle based, enterprise system that was accessible over a

WAN via a web interface. The system shall have included a GIS visualization capability, and shall have had some form of user authentication. The system shall have had an active user base of at least 500 users.

NOT RELEVANT (NR) Past/present contract effort did not involve any of the maintenance, sustainability, software, and database operations as defined in Factor 2 – Present/Past Performance Focus Area 1: System

Administration and Development or was not related to a system comparable to CIPS. A contracted effort will not be considered comparable if meets any of the following criteria:

a. The effort involved a system that was not Oracle based.

b. The effort involved a system that was not an enterprise system.

c. The effort involved a system that was not accessible over a MAN or WAN.

d. The effort involved a system that had no GIS capabilities.

e. The effort involved a system had no user authentication.

f. The effort has an active user base of less than 500 users.

FOCUS AREA 2: SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE DESIGN

RELEVANT (R) 1) Past/present contract effort involved much of the design, modification and maintenance as defined in Factor 2 – Present/Past

Performance Focus Area 2: System Architecture Design and related to a system comparable to CIPS. A contracted effort will be considered comparable if it involved the integration of applications, databases, and hardware to provide a secure, stable system and a seamless interface to the user.

2) The past/present contract shall have involved an enterprise system that is accessible via web browser over a WAN, provided user authentication via PKI, and is secured via common security protocols such as Secure Socket Layer.

SOMEWHAT RELEVANT (SR) 1) Past/present contract effort involved some of the design, modification and maintenance as defined in Factor 2 – Present/Past

Performance Focus Area 2: System Architecture Design and related to a system comparable to CIPS. A contracted effort will be considered comparable if it involved the integration of applications, databases, and hardware to provide a secure, stable system and a seamless interface to the user.

2) The past/present contract shall have involved a system that is accessible via web browser over a WAN, provides some form of user authentication, and is secured via common security protocols such as

Secure Socket Layer.

NOT RELEVANT (NR) Past/present contract effort did not involve any of the design, modification and maintenance as defined in Factor 2 –

Present/Past Performance Focus Area 2: System Architecture Design and related to a system comparable to CIPS. A contracted effort will not be considered comparable if it involved a system that was not accessible over the WAN, did not involve integrated applications, or a secure interface/user authentication.

FOCUS AREA 3: CUSTOMER SERVICE

RELEVANT (R) 1) Past/present contract effort involved much of the customer service functions as defined in Factor 2 – Present/Past Performance Focus Area

3: Customer Service and related to a system comparable to CIPS. A contracted effort will be considered comparable if it involved providing system user help desk services for a system with an active user base of at least 1,000 users.

2) The past/present contract shall have required the Offeror to provide personnel in support of system user account administration and management for an enterprise system with an active user base of at least 1,000 users.

3) The past/present contract shall have required the Offeror to provide personnel in support of system user training, to include the creation and maintenance of training materials. The effort shall have required the

Offeror to coordinate and conduct all training and to maintain trainer proficiency in system functionality.

SOMEWHAT RELEVANT (SR) 1) Past/present contract effort involved some of the customer service functions as defined in Factor 2 – Present/Past Performance Focus Area

3: Customer Service and related to a system comparable to CIPS. A contracted effort will be considered comparable if it involved providing system user help desk services for a system with an active user base of at least 500 users.

2) The past/present contract shall have required the Offeror to provide personnel in support of system user account administration and management for an enterprise system with an active user base of at least 500 users.

3) The past/present contract shall have required the Offeror to provide personnel in support of system user training.

NOT RELEVANT (NR) 1) Past/present contract effort did not involve any of the

Customer service functions as defined in Factor 2 – Present/Past

Performance Focus Area 3: Customer Service or was not related to a system comparable to CIPS. A contracted effort will not be considered comparable if it did not involve providing system user help desk functions.

2) The past/present contract did not require the Offeror to provide personnel in support of user account administration or management.

3) The past/present contract did not require the Offeror to provide personnel in support of system user training.

2.2.3 Performance Quality Assessment. The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts. The performance quality of the work performed will be assessed against the Technical factors in Section M;

however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered. The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of the PPIRS information, CPARS, interviews with Government customers, and if applicable, commercial clients. The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as present/past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comments 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 assign one of the following performance quality ratings to each recent and relevant referenced contracts provided as PPI:

EXCEPTIONAL (E) Performance meets contract requirements and exceeds many to the

Government’s benefit. Performance was accomplished with few minor problems, for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

VERY GOOD (VG) Performance meets contract requirements and exceeds some to the

Government’s benefit. Performance was accomplished with some minor problems, for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

SATISFACTORY (S) Performance meets contractual requirements. Performance was accomplished with some minor problems, for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were satisfactory.

MARGINAL (M) Performance does not meet some contractual requirements.

Performance reflects a serious problem, for which the contractor has not identified corrective actions or corrective actions were marginally effective or not fully implemented.

UNSATISFACTORY (U) Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. Performance contains serious problems, for which the contractor’s corrective actions were ineffective.

NOT APPLICABLE (NA) Unable to provide a score. Performance in this area not applicable to effort assessed.

2.2.4 Performance Confidence Ratings. As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated for each of the Focus Areas, Offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating. Offerors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom PPI is not available or so sparse that no 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 PPI will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less recent or relevant effort. A strong record of relevant PPI may be considered more advantageous to the Government than an

"Unknown Confidence" rating. Past performance regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or sub-contractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement will be rated as highly as past performance information for the principal Offeror. Performance Confidence Assessment Rating terms are defined as follows:

SUBSTANTIAL CONFIDENCE Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the

Government has a high expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

SATISFACTORY CONFIDENCE Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the

Government has an expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

LIMITED CONFIDENCE Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the

Government has a low expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

NO CONFIDENCE Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the

Government has no expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

UNKNOWN CONFIDENCE No performance record is identifiable or the Offeror’s performance record is so limited that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

2.3 Price Evaluation. Offerors’ Price proposals will be evaluated, using one or more of the price analysis techniques defined in FAR 15.404, in order to determine fair and reasonableness. The price evaluation will document reasonableness, completeness, balance and affordability of the proposed total evaluated price as follows:

2.3.1 Reasonableness. Each proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the proposed prices are reasonable.

The evaluation will assess whether the proposed prices have been developed by using appropriate and acceptable methodologies, whether proposed prices are supported by factual and verifiable data, and whether estimates are supported by valid and suitable assumption and estimating techniques.

2.3.2 Completeness. Each proposal will be evaluated to determine whether all pricing information required by the solicitation has been submitted and correlates to the operations, maintenance, management, and logistics efforts described in the corresponding sections of the technical proposal. Blank cells will be evaluated as ―no-bid/no proposal‖ and may result in elimination of your proposal from competition.

2.3.3 Balance. In addition, prices will be reviewed for unbalanced offers in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g).

Offers that do not meet these criteria may be rejected.

2.3.4. Affordability. The Government will evaluate the affordability of each Offeror’s price proposal by comparing the total proposed price as well as the price for O&M and other significant cost drivers to the independent

Government estimate (IGE), and budgetary information. The evaluation shall be made on the basis of a separate comparison for each fiscal year of the contract as well as a comparison between the total proposed prices and the total for budgetary information.

2.3.5 Apparent Mathematical Errors. Entering text, or overriding formulas within the Government-provided workbook may result in calculation errors and cause the proposal to be considered non-responsive. If a discrepancy exits between the information contained on the disk and the printed copy, the printed copy will prevail.