FA8773-15-R-0043_Draft_Atch_4_-_Section_M-1.pdf

Draft RFP: FA8773-15-R-0043 Attachment 4

OCO/DCO RTO&I Shelter Project 16 Nov 15

M-1 EVALUATION OF OFFERS

A. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD.

This is a competitive best value source selection, evaluating technical, past performance, and price, in which competing offerors' past performance history will be evaluated on a basis approximately equal to cost or price considerations where the Government may elect to trade present/past performance for price if warranted. IAW FAR 15.101-1(c), the government reserves the right to award a contract to other than the lowest priced offer if the lowest priced offeror is judged to have a performance confidence assessment of “Satisfactory Confidence” or lower. In that event, the Source Selection Authority shall make an integrated assessment best value award decision. 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. Failure to meet a requirement will result in an offer being determined technically unacceptable. The Government intends to award a single contract to the offeror who is deemed responsible IAW FAR Subpart 9.1, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications), who provides all information required by Section L of this solicitation, and who is judged, based on the evaluation factors and sub-factors, to represent the best value to the Government. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

B. EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS.

1. The evaluation process to be used is as follows:

a. Step 1: Evaluate all proposals for technical acceptability and risk (if rated “unacceptable”, consider and document the correction potential if discussions are to be conducted). For each subfactor, the Government will assess risk as it pertains to the degree to which the Offerors proposed technical approach for the requirements of the solicitation may cause disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. The perceived risk to the Government will be taken into account when assigning an Acceptable/Unacceptable rating to each subfactor.

b. Step 2: Assess performance confidence for each offeror (include “unacceptable” proposals with correction potential).

c. Step 3: Evaluate all proposals to determine whether the price is fair and reasonable (in accordance with FAR 15.404 and FAR 31.201-3), balanced (in accordance with FAR 15.404-1), and affordable

(within any budgetary information included in the solicitation); then rank by total evaluated price.

d. Step 4: If a competitive range is established and discussions are to be conducted, they will be IAW

DoD Source Selection Procedures paragraphs 3.4 – 3.6. The Government reserves the right to eliminate offerors for the purposes of efficiency IAW FAR 15.306(C)(2).

e. Step 5: Best Value Decision IAW DoD Source Selection Procedures paragraphs 3.8 and 3.9.

2. The proposals shall be evaluated against the following factors and subfactors:

Factor 1: Technical Acceptability (Acceptable/Unacceptable)

Subfactor 1: Vulnerability Identification

Subfactor 2: Software Development

Subfactor 3: Staffing/Program Management Approach

Factor 2: Present/Past Performance

Factor 3: Cost/Price

Trade-off procedures will be utilized with non-cost factors and cost/price (present/past performance and cost/price) approximately equal and technical subfactors (including risk) of technical approach and staffing being equal and evaluated on a pass/fail basis.

3. FACTOR 1 - TECHNICAL ACCEPTABILITY. The technical evaluation assesses the offeror’s demonstrated understanding and capability to satisfy the Government’s requirements. The government technical evaluation team will evaluate the technical proposals on a pass/fail basis, assigning ratings of

Acceptable or Unacceptable, defined as follows:

Acceptable: Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation

Unacceptable: Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation

A failure in any technical subfactor will result in an unacceptable rating for the technical factor. Only those technical proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. The proposals shall be evaluated against the following subfactors:

Subfactor 1: Vulnerability Identification.

The subfactor is met when the offeror demonstrates an acceptable approach in its response to Scenario 1 that it has the knowledge and capability to perform vulnerability identification, vulnerability analysis, vulnerability research, reverse engineering and forensics; that meets Performance Work Statement

(PWS) sub-paragraphs 3.2.1, 3.3.1, 3.4.1, 3.5.1.

At a minimum the Offerors response shall demonstrate an acceptable a plan of action that adequately addresses the following details:

a. Offeror’s approach to resolving the problem

b. Specific considerations placed upon project management

c. Use of technologies and techniques

d. Reporting of final findings

e. Explanation of anomalies

Subfactor 2: Software Development.

The subfactor is met when the offeror demonstrates an acceptable approach in its response to Scenario 2 that it has the capability to perform agile software development, exploitation development, payload/implant development, integration, and proof of concept transition; documentation, testing and

QA in support of software development IAW PWS subparagraphs 3.1.1, 3.6.1., 3.9.1.

At a minimum the offerors response shall demonstrate an acceptable plan of action that adequately addresses the following details:

a. Creation of an initial project backlog;

b. Sufficient design of web application server and user interface;

c. Use of the raspberry pi’s GPIO physical connectivity and software interface to drive an LCD screen;

d. The userland/kernel land bridge to control the LCD;

e. Integration considerations to put the product on an Air Force network;

f. Application of Agile Scrum concepts to the problem;

Subfactor 3: Staffing/Program Management Approach. This subfactor is met when the offeror presents a staffing and management approach for this effort that meets the following criteria:

a. An acceptable position descriptions and OCO / DCO & RTO&I SHELTER Labor Matrix

(Attachment 8).

b. An acceptable description of recruiting personnel, including employee accession, retention of qualified personnel, and ensuring they have and maintain the training, certifications, and security clearances necessary to perform the PWS requirements by the required date.

c. An acceptable description ensuring continuity of services during personnel absences due to sickness, leave and vacancies from employment such that impact to the Government is minimal.

d. An acceptable description of managing processes to ensure personnel maintain ability to operate existing and evolving network resources, topology, processes and procedures.

e. An acceptable organization staffing chart includes an organization structure that demonstrates how the organization plans to manage individual Task Orders (TO) , coordinate between TOs, and manage subcontractor and teaming partners, including the delineation of tasks performed by other than the offeror (i.e. subcontractor and teaming partners).

f. An acceptable description of the offeror’s ability to perform work in a classified operating environment, Top Secret (TS) Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI). The ability to access cleared facilities for any classified work at the contractor’s site.

4. FACTOR 2 – PRESENT/PAST PERFORMANCE. 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. Present/Past performance of either party in a joint venture counts for the past performance of the entity. The Government

Present/Past Performance Team will assess recent, relevant and quality of performance information on all offerors.

a. EVALUATION PROCESS. In conducting the past performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the offeror’s Present/Past Performance proposal and information obtained from other sources, such as: 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 (PM), Contracting Officers (CO), and Fee Determining Officials; Defense Contract

Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources. Past Performance Information (PPI) includes all information obtained during this process.

(1). 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 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 months. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

(2). RELEVANCY ASSESSMENT. A relevancy determination will be made based upon the definitions below. In determining relevancy for each mission area identified, 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. The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of relevancy.

(a) The degrees of relevancy for each past performance reference will be evaluated IAW with definitions in Shelter Relevancy Assessment (Attachment 5).

(b) PPI references will be evaluated individually for relevancy in each mission area.

(3). PERFORMANCE QUALITY ASSESSMENT.

(a) The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts. The performance quality of the work performed will be assessed for the recent and relevant PPI evaluated above. The Government will assign one of the following performance quality ratings to each recent and relevant referenced contract provided as PPI:

EXCEPTIONAL (E) - During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeding (or exceeded) many. Very few, if any, minor problems encountered. Contractor took immediate and effective corrective action.

VERY GOOD (VG) - During the contract period, contractor is meeting (or met) all contract requirements with some exceeded to the Government’s (Customer’s) benefit. The contractual performance was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

SATISFACTORY (S) - During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements. For any problems encountered, contractor took effective corrective action.

MARGINAL (M) - During the contract period, contractor performance is not meeting (or did not meet) some contract requirements. For any problems encountered, corrective action appeared only marginally effective, not effective, or not fully implemented. Customer involvement was required.

UNSATISFACTORY (U) - During the contract period, contractor performance is failing (or failed) to meet most contract requirements. Serious problems encountered. Corrective actions were either ineffective or non-existent. Extensive Customer oversight and involvement was required.

NOT APPLICABLE (NA) - Unable to provide a rating. Contract did not include performance for this aspect. Do not know.

(b) 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(s) received from sources without a formal rating system for which the offeror has not had a chance to respond. 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.

(4) PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT.

(a) As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating. In evaluating confidence, Software Development is the most important area, with Vulnerability Research, Reverse Engineering &

Forensics, and Network Intrusion Detection\Prevention Analysis being approximately equal areas and

Quality Assurance and Network & System Administration being the least important areas. Offerors without a record of recent/relevant past performance or for whom PPI is not available or 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 Present/Past Performance factor.

(b) More recent and relevant performance may have a greater impact on the Performance

Confidence Assessment than less recent or relevant effort. Likewise, a more relevant present/past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance.

(c) Performance Confidence Assessment Rating terms as defined in DoD Source Selection

Procedures, Table 5, Performance Confidence Assessments, excerpted below:

SUBSTANTIAL CONFIDENCE - Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

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

SATISFACTORY CONFIDENCE - Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

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.

UNKNOWN CONFIDENCE - No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

4. FACTOR 3 - COST/PRICE.

Offerors whose price is determined to be unreasonable, unrealistic, unbalanced, incomplete or unaffordable may not be considered for award.

The Offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated for award purposes, based upon the total price proposed for the Pricing Model (Attachment 10) including all options and the Task Order Pricing Table

(Attachment 11) for the TO combined, to develop the Total Evaluated Price (TEP). Evaluation of option years shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

Offerors’ price proposals will be evaluated, using one or more of the price analysis techniques defined in

FAR 15.404, in order to determine fairness and reasonableness. The price evaluation will document reasonableness, realism, balance, completeness, and affordability of the proposed total evaluated price as follows:

Price Reasonableness.

a. Adequate price competition in accordance with FAR 15.305 and 15.404-1 is anticipated to determine price reasonableness. Price analysis will be used to evaluate the reasonableness of each

Offeror’s TEP to satisfy the requirement mandated by FAR 15.305(a)(1).

b. Price reasonableness will be determined based on comparison of each Offeror’s respective TEP to the average TEPs from all Offerors. However, if the contracting officer determines that information on competitive proposed prices is not available or is insufficient to determine that the price is fair and reasonable, the contracting officer may use any of the remaining techniques and procedures per FAR

15.404-1(b)(2) as appropriate to the circumstances applicable to the acquisition.

c. Overall, the proposed price must be reasonable to both the Government and the Offeror. A price is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business. A determination of unreasonably high TEP may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from the competition.

Price Realism.

The Government will review prices submitted in the TO proposal, and the Labor Rate Tables

(Attachment 9) for price realism. Pricing will be considered “unrealistic” if any specific unit price or if the TEP is significantly below the Government estimate or the average price of all Offerors for that specific element.

Unbalanced Pricing.

Offerors are cautioned against submitting an unbalanced offer. The Government will analyze offers to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to Price. Per FAR 52.215-1(f)(8), the Government may determine that a proposal is unacceptable if the prices proposed are materially unbalanced between line items or subline items. The Government may also consider an offer unbalanced if there is a significant difference between proposed prices from year to year, including option years, such that they are above or below what would be considered a reasonable adjustment for inflation. A proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the

Government.

Completeness.

A proposal is complete when all pricing data required under Section L of the Request for Proposal

(RFP) is provided in the format prescribed.

a. Labor Rate Tables. Offeror’s data Other Than Certified Cost or Pricing information and estimating methodology will be used to evaluate the reasonableness and realism of the fully burdened labor rates. Rates found to be unreasonable or unrealistic may render your proposal ineligible for award.

b. Pricing Model. An Offeror’s TEP for the Pricing Model will be calculated by multiplying the average proposed Fully Burdened Firm Fixed Price (FFP) hourly rates per labor category as calculated in the Labor Rate Tables, against the Government’s predetermined labor hours associated with each labor category, as identified in Section L, Pricing Model. All individual labor category costs will then be totaled to arrive at the Offeror’s TEP for the Pricing Model.

For establishment of the TEP only, if prime and teaming partners propose labor rates for the same labor category in the Labor Rate Tables and corresponding Pricing Model, prime and teaming partner rates will be averaged via the Pricing Model to calculate one labor rate for that category for the Pricing

Model. The average will be calculated with 50% weighting on the Prime and 50% for combined

Teaming Partners.

c. Task Order. The prices proposed in the Task Order Pricing Table will be calculated to determine a total evaluated price for the TO. Offerors must use proposed pricing from the Labor Rate Tables in the

Task Order Pricing Table. All individual total prices will be totaled to arrive at the TEP for each Offeror and then combined with the TEP from the Pricing Model to develop a total TEP for this effort.

d. Affordability. The Government will evaluate whether each Offeror’s price proposal is affordable by comparing the proposed prices to the budgetary information included in section L. 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 price and the total budgetary information included in the solicitation.

e. Professional Compensation Plan (IAW FAR 52.222-46). Offerors proposals will be evaluated to determine if the provisions at FAR 52.222-46 -- Evaluation of Compensation for Professional

Employees (Feb 1993) have been satisfied. Failure to submit and/or meet the Professional

Compensation Plan requirements may render your proposal ineligible for award.

f. Apparent Mathematical Errors. The proposal will be evaluated to ensure if a discrepancy exists between the information contained on the disk and the printed copy, the printed copy will prevail.