ICPS_DRAFT_Section_M_16MAR18.pdf

ATTACHMENT 5 – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

DRAFT COPY-Section M will be reviewed and updated prior to issuance of the Formal

RFP.

Section M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

A. Basis for Contract Award This is a competitive best value source selection, evaluating technical acceptability, past performance, and price, 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. 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 contract award. Failure to meet a requirement may 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 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. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; and therefore, professional judgement is implicit throughout the entire process.

B. EVALUATION OF FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS.

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.

Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors. Non-price factors are listed in descending order of importance and when combined, all non-price factors are considered equal to 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: System Architecture Design and Maintenance. This subfactor is met when the offeror presents an acceptable approach for how it will conduct network security monitoring and intrusion detection analysis efforts which meet the following criteria:

a. Identify potential hardware and software interfaces, both internal and external to the IOP, affected by the needed upgrade, and propose solutions to enable more efficient and effective use of system resources.

b. Identify potential impacts to and benefits of the upgrade in regards to input acceptance, data processing, and reporting capabilities for IOP at multiple security levels.

c. Identify benefits of the upgrade in regards to improving methods of correlating sensor feeds into the Security Information and Event Management (SIEM), currently ArcSight, displays and visualization capabilities. Also, identify potential alternatives because of the upgrade.

d. Identify potential quality assurance (QA) test procedures and supporting QA test industry best practices based on this upgrade.

Subfactor 2: System Administration and Sensor Maintenance.

This subfactor is met when the offeror presents an acceptable approach for how it will implement Tier 3 technical support, update software, and implement processes to overcome hurdles related to the ATO processes which meet the following criteria:

a. Tier 3 technical support of deployed IDS/IPS systems and system capability exploration/ development/testing must continue during this effort. Identify how the required changes to the network will be accomplished while minimizing the disruption of the support and innovation missions.

b. In updating the obsolete software on the network, the Active Directory server is upgraded to the latest version. The updated system is scanned for vulnerabilities, and after applying Security Technical Implementation Guide (STIG) guidance and procedures to harden the server, it no longer works correctly (effectively halting current development efforts). Describe and justify an approach to resolve this problem so that the support and innovation missions can resume quickly.

c. Identify the potential hurdles to obtaining an ATO via the RMF process within the time available, and describe/justify an approach to overcome these hurdles and complete the A&A process.

d. Identify best practices for ensuring all hardware and software on the development network are identified, tracked, and processes defined to ensure data on these assets are kept up to date.

Subfactor 3: Operations Support. This subfactor is met when the offeror presents an acceptable approach for how it will adapt to potential challenges to upgraded IPS systems, identify a plan to develop TTPs, and implement coordination between IPS Tier 3 support and IPS stakeholders which meet the following criteria:

a. Identify potential challenges that might be encountered by teams sent out to upgrade fielded IPS systems and to train the analysts/maintainers of the systems.

b. New capabilities require defined Tactics, Techniques and Procedures (TTPs) to be used effectively. Identify steps to develop TTPs for the capability prior to deployment, and to refine the TTPs after deployment.

c. Upgrading older systems in order to successfully install the new capability will require coordination between the IPS Tier 3 support team and the IPS stakeholders involved in the support process. Identify potential changes to normal Tier 3 support processes to minimize the turn-around time for upgrading and re-deploying the systems.

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); and commercial sources. 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 System Architecture Design and Maintenance, System Administration and Sensor Maintenance, and Operations 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 below. 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. 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 recency and relevancy.

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- 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.

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. FACTOR 3: COST/PRICE

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

2. An offeror’s proposed Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be determined by multiplying the quantities identified in the Pricing Table (included as Section J Attachment 2 to the solicitation) by the proposed unit price for each Contract Line Item Number or Subcontract Line Item Number to confirm the extended amount for each. Offerors whose TEP isTEP 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) may not be considered for award.

3. Offerors’ price proposals will be evaluated for award purposes, based upon the total price proposed including all options combined, to develop the TEP. Evaluation of option years shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

4. 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 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.

ICPS Budget Estimate (Includes all CLINs):

FY 19 $4.5M

FY 20 $4.6M

FY 21 $4.7M

FY 22 $4.7M

FY 22 $4.8M

FY 23 $2.5M

5. 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 X001: Labor (Firm Fixed Price (FFP) is evaluated at 100% in the TEP.

b. CLIN X002: Labor (Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF)) is evaluated at 100% in the

TEP.

c. CLIN X003: Travel (Cost Reimbursable (CR)) (The amount is established by the Government, shall not be altered by the offeror, and is not applicable to the TEP analysis of the Pricing Table).

d. CLIN X004: Materials (CR) The amount is established by the Government, shall not be altered by the offeror, and is not applicable to the TEP analysis of the Pricing Table.

e. CLIN X005: DATA (Not Separately Priced (NSP)).

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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.

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.

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS :ATTACHMENTS: Section M attachments listed below are provided as separate files.

Attachment 1: Relevancy Assessment Matrix

A. Basis for Contract Award