Section_M_Attachment_2_-_Evaluations_Of_Offer.pdf

RFP: FA8773-16-R-8002 Section M Attachment 2

DCRIOS

M-1 EVALUATION OF OFFERS

A. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

This is a competitive best value source selection, evaluating technical acceptability, past performance, and price, in which competing offeror’s past performance history will be evaluated on a basis approximately equal to price considerations where the Government may elect to trade past performance for price if warranted. IAW FAR 15.101- 1(c), tradeoffs among cost or price and non-cost factors, allowing the Government to accept other than the lowest priced proposal, are permitted. 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. Additionally, a Qualified Offeror must have an Active TOP SECRET Facility Clearance at the time of proposal submission. 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 the FAR Subpart 9.1, as supplemented, and determined eligible by Small Business Administration IAW FAR 19.8, 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 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 (if rated “unacceptable”, consider and document the correction potential if discussions are to be conducted).

b. Step 2: Assess performance confidence for each offeror.

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), complete (all pricing information submitted, realistic, and affordable (within any budgetary information included in the solicitation); then ranked 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. Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors. All evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are approximately equal to cost or price.

C. Technical Acceptability. Initially, the government technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals on a pass/fail basis, assigning ratings of Acceptable or Unacceptable. The technical evaluation assesses the offeror’s demonstrated understanding and capability to satisfy the Government’s requirements. 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 factors and subfactors:

FACTOR 1 – TECHNICAL

Subfactor 1: Management/Staffing Plan. This subfactor is met when the offeror presents an acceptable management and staffing approach for DCRIOS services effort which meets the following criteria:

i. An acceptable organizational structure that provides qualified and appropriately certified personnel resources, to include any subcontracting and teaming arrangements, in an organizational structure that ensures the availability of labor categories with experience, security clearance, and minimum acceptable qualifications necessary to meet the requirements IAW PWS Sections 2.3.3, 3, and 4.

ii. An acceptable mitigation plan describing how TS/SCI/8570.01-M certified personnel and necessary polygraphs will be acquired, IAW PWS 2.3.3.2, and 4.1.1.2 at initiation of contract.

iii. A sound methodology for recruiting, replacing personnel or hiring additional personnel on short notice IAW PWS Section 2.3.3. and 4.1.1.1.

iv. An acceptable methodology for training new personnel in processes and procedures to ensure personnel maintain ability to operate existing and evolving Cyber Protection Team (CPT) and Cyber Vulnerability Assessment (CVA) processes and procedures associated with this IAW PWS Sections.2.3.3.2, 3 and 4.

v Transition Plan. This subfactor is met when the offeror provides a transition plan including a work breakdown structure (WBS) that identifies parties, dates, critical actions, and deliverables required to ensure a smooth transition and continuity of services between the current contracts and this effort IAW PWS Section 2 and 3 requirements.

Subfactor 2: Mission Operations. This subfactor is met when the offeror provides an acceptable approach for each of the two scenarios that complies with policy and guidance identified in the PWS paragraphs 3.2.3 and 3.2.4:

Scenario 1

A CVA has been dispatched to assess a space system being developed. The team consists of a government lead and the rest are contracted support.

Scenario 2

A CPT has been tasked to provide Defensive Cyber Operations and Mission Assurance to its supported Combatant Command. The nature of support will require the full capabilities of the CPT. The CPTs have not fully matured their operational processes and will be looking to your team for support in executing the mission.

Subfactor 3: Mission Support. This subfactor is met when the offeror presents an acceptable approach that explains how Mission Support will be accomplished which meets the following criteria:

i. Demonstrates an acceptable methodology and approach for conducting Configuration Management, System Evolution and Integration, and Unit Line Maintenance IAW PWS Section

3.1.1 - 3.1.3.

ii. Demonstrates an acceptable methodology and approach for providing Information Protection/Certification and Accreditation, and Document Control and Tracking IAW PWS Sections 3.1.4 and 3.1.5.

iii. Demonstrates an acceptable methodology and approach for developing and implementing training curriculum, providing Standardization/Evaluation Support, and supporting Weapons and Tactics development IAW PWS Sections 3.1.6 and 3.1.7.

D. FACTOR 2 - PAST PERFORMANCE INFORMATION. Performance Confidence Assessment. The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to allow the government to assess the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements based on the offeror’s demonstrated past performance. The contracting officer will assess performance confidence for each offeror. In conducting the past performance evaluation, the contracting officer reserves the right to use the past efforts provided by the offeror and data independently obtained from other Government and commercial sources, such as: the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), or other databases; interviews with Program Managers (PM), Contracting Officers (CO), and Fee Determining Officials; Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), commercial sources, and any other sources the government deems applicable. Past Performance Information (PPI) includes all information obtained during this process. The evaluation process is as follows:

1. RECENCY ASSESSMENT. An assessment of the PPI 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 as of the release of the RFP. PPI that fails to meet this condition will not be evaluated.

2. RELEVANCY ASSESSMENT. Relevant performance includes performance of efforts involving Management Support, Mission Operations and Mission Support that involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. A relevancy determination of the offeror’s past performance, including joint venture partner(s) and subcontractor(s) will be made based upon the definitions in the Relevancy Matrix. In determining relevancy for the individual contract references, 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. PPI references will be evaluated individually for relevancy in each mission area. The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of relevancy. The Government reserves the right to give greater consideration to information on those contracts deemed most relevant to the effort described in this RFP. The Government will use the degrees of relevancy in Attachment 1 - Relevancy Matrix, for each past performance reference when assessing recent, relevant.

3. PERFORMANCE QUALITY ASSESSMENT.

a. 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 contracts reference 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. Some minor problems encountered. Contractor took timely corrective action.

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 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. Performance confidence is assessed at the overall past performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the requirement, specifically taking into consideration present and past experience with the services identified in the attached Relevancy Matrix. The Government will consider past performance cumulatively in addition to an individual contract basis.

b. As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating. 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 Past Performance factor.

c. 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 past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance.

d. Merely having problems does not automatically equate to a limited or no confidence rating, since the problems encountered may have been on a more complex requirement, or an offeror may have subsequently demonstrated the ability to overcome the problems encountered. The offeror shall clearly demonstrate management actions employed in overcoming problems and the effects of those actions in terms of improvements achieved or problems rectified.

e. 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.

E. FACTOR 3 – Cost/Price

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

2. Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated for award purposes, based upon the total price proposed for the Pricing Model Attachment (L-7.1) and the TO Pricing Table including all options, combined, to develop the Total Evaluated Price (TEP). Evaluation of option years shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

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

FAR 15.404, in order to determine reasonableness. Cost realism will be performed on the CPFF Labor Rate Tables (Attachment L-7).

a. Completeness: Each proposal will be evaluated to determine whether all pricing information required under Section L of the RFP has been submitted in the format prescribed.

b. Price Reasonableness: The Government will review Offeror’s combined TEP for Reasonableness. Offeror’s combined TEP will consist of the TEPs for the Pricing Model Attachment (L-7.1) and the TO Pricing Table. Each proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the proposed prices are 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 adequate price competition, but may also be determined through other price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404.

1. Pricing Model: The Pricing Model consists of labor rates transferred from the average column of the Labor Rate Tables to the Pricing Model for the Prime and each Teaming Partner. Labor Rates for the Prime and all Teaming partners will be automatically averaged to develop one rate for each labor category. All averaged labor rates will be totaled to develop the TEP for the Pricing Model.

2. TO Pricing Table: The TEP for the TO Pricing Table will be derived by multiplying the proposed labor category quantity, times the labor rate for each labor category under each CLIN as follows:

CLIN 0001: Transition Period (Firm Fixed Price (FFP) is evaluated at 100% in the TEP.

CLIN 0002- 4002: Labor-Recurring Support Services (FFP) is evaluated at 100% in the

TEP.

CLIN 0003 - 4003: Labor-Emerging Contingency Requirements (CPFF) (this CLIN will be evaluated at the task order level when a CPFF task order is contemplated and is not applicable to the TEP analysis of the Pricing Table).

CLIN 0004 - 4004: DATA (Not Separately Priced (NSP).

CLIN 0005 – 4005: Materials (Cost Reimbursable (CR)) The amount is established by the Government, shall not be altered by the offeror, and is evaluated at 100% in the TEP. These costs will not be evaluated, but will be part of the TEP. Do not adjust the prices for these CLINs.

CLIN 0006 – 4006: Travel (Cost Reimbursable (CR)) The amount is established by the Government, shall not be altered by the offeror, and is evaluated at 100% in the TEP. These costs will not be evaluated, but will be part of the TEP. Do not adjust the prices for these CLINs.

NOTE: 5002 – Option to Extend Services will be evaluated using existing proposed unit prices for Option Period 4. The pricing table will automatically calculate the extended CLIN price for CLIN 5002 based on 50% of the QTY and 100% of the Labor Rate entered in Option Period 4.

c. Cost Realism: The Government will conduct an analysis of the cost elements of cost CLINs in the Labor Rate Tables identified in Section L, paragraph F 3 to determine if costs are realistic.

The Government will evaluate proposed burdened labor rates to determine whether the costs are realistic and reflect a clear understanding of contract requirements.

Other techniques and procedures, if deemed necessary, may be used to ensure realistic costs, to include, but not limited to, the following: comparison of previously proposed costs and previous Government contract costs with current proposed costs for the same or similar service/items;

comparison with competitive market costs of similar indexes; GSA schedule(s) or Department of Labor wage/salary indexes; or comparison of proposed costs with an independent Government estimate.

The Government will review and evaluate cost elements of CLINs X003 of each offeror’s proposal to determine whether the estimated proposed cost elements are realistic for the work to be performed; reflect a clear understanding of the requirements, and are consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the offeror’s technical proposal (FAR 15.404- 1(d)(1) and 2.101). When the Government evaluates an offer as unrealistically low compared to the anticipated costs of performance and offeror fails to explain these underestimated costs, the Government will consider, under the Technical Risk Rating, the offerors lack of understanding of the technical requirements of the applicable Technical subfactors. Proposal Analysis Techniques found in FAR 15.404-1 will be utilized. If the Government feels the offeror’s probable cost differs from its proposed cost the Government reserves the right to utilize the probable cost for purposes of best value IAW FAR 15.404-1(d)(2). It is anticipated that the same burdened base rates (less profit/fee) for all cost type rates will be identical to the fixed price type rates in the Labor Price/Cost Table and Model. This is anticipated to satisfy the realism evaluation for these labor rates. If this is not the case or the Government feels it needs further information to support price realism the Government reserves the right to request further information.

d. Most Probable Cost (MPC): The Government reserves the right to adjust proposed costs of cost CLINS for realism evaluation purposes if analysis concludes that such costs may be understated or overstated in Offeror’s Labor Rate Tables. Recommended Audit rates and/or other techniques similar to but not limited to, those listed under cost realism may be used to estimate the TEP for MPC on labor, overheads and other indirect costs unless Offeror provides convincing evidence to support the use of other rates.

e. Unbalanced Pricing: Prices will be reviewed for unbalanced offers IAW FAR 15.404-1.

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. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. A proposal may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

f. Affordability: The Government will evaluate whether each Offeror’s price proposal is affordable by comparing the total proposed per FY for the TO Pricing Table to the 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 price and the total budgetary information included below.

DCRIOS Budget Estimate (Task Order #001): $61.6M

DCRIOS Budget Estimate (Includes all CLINs): $99.9M

g. Professional Compensation Plan (IAW FAR 52.222-46)

i. 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 meet the Professional Compensation Plan requirements may render your proposal ineligible for award.

ii. Evaluation of FAR 52.222-46 -- Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees (Feb 1993) As part of its price proposal, offeror shall provide its total compensation plan setting forth salaries and fringe benefits proposed for the professional employees who will work under the contract.

4. Apparent Mathematical Errors

In the event a discrepancy exists between the information contained in any electronic copies and the printed copies, the printed copy will prevail.

5. Failure to comply with these provisions may constitute sufficient cause to justify rejection of a proposal.

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.

G. DISCUSSIONS. The Government reserves the right to award without discussions. 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. Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (for example, the relevancy of PPI) or respond to adverse PPI to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Communications conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions and the contracting officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.

H. PRE-AWARD SURVEY. The Government may conduct a pre-award survey (PAS) as part of this source selection. Results of the PAS (if conducted) will be evaluated to determine each offeror's capability to meet the requirements of the solicitation.