ICPS_Section_M_18JUL18.pdf

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

A. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

This is a competitive best value source selection using subjective trade-off, 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. In accordance with (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. 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.

The evaluation process shall proceed as follows: Present/Past Performance is requested to be submitted prior to the rest of the Offeror’s proposal. The Past Performance Evaluation Team (PPET) will evaluate performance confidence to determine Recency, Relevancy, and Quality, or each Offeror. Next, proposals will be evaluated for technical acceptability. At the same time that technical acceptability is being evaluated, cost/price proposals will be reviewed to determine whether the price is fair and reasonable IAW FAR 15.404 and FAR 31.201-3); balanced (IAW FAR 15.404-1), affordable, complete (all pricing information submitted, and professional compensation plan), and then ranked by total evaluated price. If a competitive range is established and discussions are to be conducted, they will be IAW Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures, dated 31 Mar 2016. To conclude, award will be made using the Best Value Decision IAW DoD Source Selection Procedures, dated 31 Mar 2016.

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.

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 below table shows the definitions of Technical Acceptability.

Table A-1. Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings Rating Description Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

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

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

FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL

Subfactor 1: System Architecture Design and Development. In response to Scenario One listed in Section L, this subfactor is met when the Offeror presents an acceptable approach for how they propose to upgrade the current system used in conducting network security monitoring and intrusion detection analysis efforts, which meet the following criteria:

a. Perform Analysis of Alternatives (AoA), identifying potential hardware and software interfaces both internal and external to the IOP affected by the needed upgrade. Propose at least two solutions that demonstrate capabilities that meet the new network throughput requirements while exceeding the current system-security levels (i.e. resistance to attack/compromise) provided by Information Operations Platform (IOP) version 1.6.x.

Alternatives should enable more efficient and effective use of system resources.

• AoA should include the potential impacts to and benefits of the upgrade in regards to input acceptance, data processing (threat detection, data indexing and search), and reporting capabilities for IOP at multiple security levels.

• AoA should include a description of 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.

• AoA should include descriptions of potential quality assurance (QA) test procedures and supporting QA test industry best practices implemented in this upgrade.

b. For all the criteria above, responses should be complete, logical, realistic, and compliant with current DoD Information Assurance (IA) directives.

Subfactor 2: Operations Support. In response to Scenario Two listed in Section L, 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 Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures (TTP), and implement coordination between IPS Tier 3 support and IPS stakeholders, and addressing RMF challenges, which meet the following criteria:

a. Identify and describe 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 TTPs to be used effectively. Identify and describe 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 and describe potential changes to normal Tier 3 support processes to minimize the turn-around time for upgrading and re-deploying the systems.

d. For all the criteria above, responses should be complete, logical, realistic, and compliant with current DoD IA directives.

D. FACTOR 2 – PRESENT/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 Government will assess performance confidence for each Offeror. In conducting the past performance evaluation, the Government 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. PPI that fails to meet this condition will not be evaluated.

2. RELEVANCY ASSESSMENT. Relevant performance includes performance of efforts that involved an effort similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. A relevancy determination of the Offeror’s past performance will be made, including joint venture partner(s) and subcontractor(s). 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 Request for Proposal (RFP). The Government will use the degrees of relevancy in Section M, Attachment 1 - Relevancy Assessment Matrix, for each past performance reference when assessing relevancy.

3. PERFORMANCE QUALITY ASSESSMENT.

a. The performance quality of the work performed will be assessed for 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) – Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government’s benefit. The element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

VERY GOOD (VG) - Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s benefit. The element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

SATISFACTORY (S) - Performance meets contractual requirements. The element being assessed was accomplished contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

MARGINAL (M) - Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions.

UNSATISFACTORY (U) - Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The element being assessed contains a serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

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 a 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, and quality with the services identified in the attached Relevancy Assessment 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. A more relevant, higher quality record of past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a less relevant and/or lower quality record of favorable performance.

d. Adverse past performance is defined as 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. The Offeror shall clearly demonstrate management actions employed in overcoming adverse past performance 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.

NEUTRAL 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. The Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorable on the factor of past performance.

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, unrealistic, incomplete, or unaffordable may not be considered for award.

2. An Offeror's proposed Total Evaluated Price (TEP) in the Pricing Table (included in Section J Attachment 2 to the solicitation) will be calculated by extending the proposed hours and labor rates for Contract Line Item Numbers (CLIN) x001 and x002 for all Periods of Performance (PoP), including Option to Extend Services. Offerors whose TEP: is unreasonable (in accordance with FAR 15.404 and FAR 31.201-3), contains unbalanced pricing (in accordance with FAR 15.404-1), contains cost elements that cannot be determined realistic, or is unaffordable (not within any budgetary information included in the solicitation) may not be considered for award. CLINs x003 through x006 are not included in the TEP.

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, cost realism, 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 TEPs from all Offerors. However, if the Pricing Evaluation team determines that information on competitive proposed prices is not available or is insufficient to determine that the price is fair and reasonable, the Government 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 low or 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. Cost Realism Per FAR 15.404-1(d), Cost Realism Analysis is the process of independently reviewing and evaluating specific elements of each Offeror’s proposed cost estimate 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.

At a minimum, Cost Realism Analyses shall be performed on Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) Labor CLIN x002 to determine the probable cost of performance for each Offeror.

Cost Realism Analyses, in exceptional cases, may be used on competitive fixed-price-type contracts when new requirements may not be fully understood by competing Offerors, there are quality concerns, or past experience indicates that contractors’ proposed costs have resulted in quality or service shortfalls. If adequate price competition or price analysis of Firm Fixed Price (FFP) Labor CLIN x001 is not sufficient to determine fair and reasonable prices, Cost Realism may be used.

e. 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 the total price and the total budgetary information based on x001 and x002:

ICPS Budget Estimate (Includes all CLINs): $25.3M (also see auto-calculation in Pricing Table)

5. The TEP will be derived by multiplying the estimated quantity times the unit price for the CLINs.

The proposed price will be evaluated as follows:

1. CLIN X001: Labor –(FFP) is evaluated at 100% in the TEP.

2. CLIN X002: Labor -(CPFF) is evaluated at 100% in the TEP.

3. 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).

4. 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.

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

6. 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. 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. The Government will evaluate the plan to assure that it reflects a sound management approach and understanding of the contract requirements. This evaluation will include an assessment of the Offeror’s ability to provide uninterrupted high-quality work. The professional compensation proposed will be considered in terms of its impact upon recruiting and retention, its realism, and its consistency with a total plan for compensation. Supporting information will include data, such as recognized national and regional compensation surveys and studies of professional, public and private organizations, used in establishing the total compensation structure. Failure to meet the Professional Compensation Plan requirements may render your proposal ineligible for award.

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.

9. Cost Realism for CPFF Labor: The Government will use one or more cost analysis techniques to describe in FAR 15.404-1(c) to determine the proposed costs for the CPFF Labor are realistic. If an Offeror’s proposed CPFF Labor is determined unrealistically low, then the Offeror may not be considered for award.

F. The Government reserves the right to award a contract to other than the lowest priced offer. 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.

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

Attachment 1: Relevancy Assessment Matrix