CyOFTS_II,_Section_M__September_2017_rev_2.docx

SECTION M-1

A. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

This is a competitive best value source selection, in which competing offerors’ past performance history will be evaluated on a basis significantly more important than price considerations where the Government may elect to trade past performance for price if warranted. 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. The tradeoff will occur only between the past performance factor and the price factor. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined technically unacceptable. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. The evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

Step 1: Evaluate all proposals for technical acceptability (if rated “unacceptable”, consider and document the correction potential if discussions are to be conducted).

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

Step 3: Evaluate all proposals to determine whether the price is fair and reasonable IAW FAR 15.404 and FAR 31.201-3); balanced (IAW FAR 15.404-1), complete (all pricing information submitted, and professional compensation plan, then rank by total evaluated price.

Step 4: If a competitive range is established and discussions are to be conducted, they will be IAW DoD Source Selection Procedures, dated 31 March 2016, paragraphs 3.4-3.6. The Government reserves the right to eliminate offerors for the purposes of efficiency IAW FAR 15.306 (c) (2).

Step 5: Best Value Decision IAW DoD Source Selection Procedures, dated 31 March 2016, paragraphs 3.8 and 3.9

B. RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS

Factor 2 (Past Performance) is significantly more important than Factor 3, (Price). Factor 1 (Technical) must meet the minimum requirements; all technical subfactors are equal and evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis for the technical factor.

C. TECHNICAL ACCEPTABILITY

The Government technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals on a pass/fail basis, assigning ratings of Acceptable or Unacceptable. 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:

FACTOR 1- TECHNICAL

Subfactor 1: Management Plan/Staffing Plan. This subfactor is met when the offeror demonstrates an acceptable management/staffing approach that explains how it will meet the PWS requirements and the appendices. The approach shall meet the following criteria (do not include employee names or resumes):

a. Offeror has an Active TOP SECRET Facility Clearance. or have submitted a TOP SECRET Facility Clearance request to the DSS Facility Clearance Branch and are affected by the Government Delay of the Tranfer to the National Industrial Security System (NISS).

b. An acceptable organizational structure to include a completed CyOFTS II Labor Matrix that provides certified personnel resources, including any subcontracting and teaming arrangements. The organizational structure shall adequately demonstrate the labor categories, position descriptions, security clearances, number of fully qualified positions available on Day One and minimum acceptable qualifications necessary to meet the requirements IAW PWS Section 3.0.

c. An acceptable methodology for recruiting, training, accession and retention of certified personnel, training, obtaining/maintaining personnel clearances and certifications. Methodology adequately addresses continuity of service during personnel absences due to sickness, leave and vacancies such that impact to the 39 IOS mission is not impacted.

d. An acceptable transition plan that ensures continuity of services and a smooth effective transition where they have the ability to be fully staffed and ready to begin performance on day 1 of the contract

Subfactor 2: Mission Operations. This subfactor is met when the offeror provides an acceptable approach for each of the two scenarios that comply with policy and guidance identified in the PWS paragraphs 3.1.1 thru 3.1.3.

An acceptable Scenario One

An acceptable cognitive lesson plan submitted in the correct format (Section L, Attachment 3), specified lesson time, and created utilizing the Master Training Task List (MTTL) (Section L, Attachment 2). Lesson objectives are clear, concise, and measureable and support the objectives at the right level of learning; and written at the blooms taxonomy of learning. Additionally, ISD Methodologies must be used in the development of the Lesson Plan.

An acceptable Scenario Two

An acceptable virtual hands-on lesson submitted in correct psychomotor format (Section L, Attachment 4) and the specified lesson time. Lesson objectives are clear, concise, and measureable and support the objectives at the right level of learning; and written at the blooms taxonomy of learning. Virtual machine(s) properly install with configuration notes and lab aligns with student guide.

D. FACTOR 2-PAST PERFORMANCE

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 considered recent, the contracts must have been completed in the past five years with on-going actions considered recent as long as the effort has been performed for at least six months prior to the date for receipt of proposals for this RFP. PPI that fails to meet this condition will not be evaluated.

2. Relevancy Assessment. Relevant performance includes performance of efforts involving Cyber Operations Formal Training 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 each area of 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. 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 Section M-Attachment 1 - Relevancy Matrix, for each past performance reference when assessing recent and relevant.

3. Performance Quality Assessment.

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.

4. Assigning Ratings

a. As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating. Performance confidence is assessed at the overall past performance factor level after evaluating 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.

b. 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. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than an “Unknown Confidence” rating. 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, are 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 In evaluating past performance, the Government reserves the right to give greater consideration to information on those contracts deemed most relevant to the effort described in this RFP.

E. PRICE EVALUATION. The Government shall rank all technically acceptable offers (and Unacceptable offers with correction potential) by total evaluated price, including any option prices. Offerors whose total evaluated price is unreasonable (in accordance with FAR 15.404 and FAR 31.201-3), unbalanced (in accordance with FAR 15.404-1), or unaffordable (not within any budgetary information included in the solicitation) or have an unrealistic professional compensation plan may not be considered for award.

FACTOR 3- PRICE EVALUATION

1. 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, balance, completeness, and affordability of the proposed total evaluated price (TEP) as follows:

a. Price Reasonableness

(1) 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).

(2) 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.

(3) 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.

b. 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. 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.

c. 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.

d. Affordability

The Government will evaluate whether each Offeror’s price proposal is affordable by comparing the total proposed prices 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.

CyOFTS II Budget Estimate (includes all CLINs):

FY 18 $ 8.2M

FY 19 $ 8.8M

FY 20 $ 9.0M

FY 21 $ 9.2M

FY 22 $ 9.3M

FY 23 $ 4.7M

2. The total evaluated price will be derived by multiplying the estimated quantity times the unit price for the CLINs. The proposed price will be evaluated as follows:

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

b. CLINs 0002- 4002 -- Labor-Support Services (FFP) are evaluated at 100% in the TEP.

c. CLINs 0003 – 4003 – DATA (Not Separately Priced (NSP).

d. CLINs 0004-4004--Travel (Cost Reimbursable (CR)) are evaluated at 100% in the TEP; however, the amount is established by the Government and shall not be altered by the offeror.

e. CLINs 0005 - 4005 -- Other Direct Costs (ODC) (Cost Reimbursable (CR)) are evaluated 100% in the TEP; however, the amount is established by the Government and shall not be altered by the offeror.

e. CLIN 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 100% of the monthly amount entered in Option Period 4.

The product of these calculations will be added for the base period and all option period to calculate the TEP.

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

a. 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.

b. 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 for the offeror and subcontractors/teaming partners/joint venture partners.

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.

F. 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.