17. Section M Amendment 04 AMENDED.pdf

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

For

ENTERPRISE CYBER CAPABILITIES (EC2) MULTIPLE AWARD

IDIQ ACQUISITION SOLICITATION NO: FA8773-22-R0005

M.1. GENERAL INFORMATION

M.1.1. The Government intends to award multiple award IDIQ contracts to each, and all Qualifying Offerors as determined In Accordance With (IAW) this solicitation. This requirement is solicited full and open with a partial small business set-aside, under NAICS 541330 Engineering Services, Except Military and Aerospace Equipment and Military Weapons IAW FAR 19.502-4 Partial set-asides of multiple award contracts. A portion of the requirement will be set-aside at the task order level for Small Business and a portion of the requirement may be set-aside at the task order level for other socio-economic small business set-asides IAW agency procedures and the EC2 Ordering Guide.

M.1.2. Basis for Award. This is a best value source selection conducted IAW Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3 and DoD Source Selection Procedures, 20 August 2022, as supplemented. The Government intends to make an award to each and all Qualifying Offerors.

To be considered a "Qualifying Offeror", the Offeror must meet or exceed the delineated requirements of the solicitation, with the Government determining:

(1) the Offeror is responsible IAW FAR 9.104-1,

(2) the Offeror’s proposal is technically acceptable by achieving a 90 percent or higher score of the maximum attainable points in Factor 1, Past Experience, achieving a "Substantial Confidence" rating in Factor 2, Past Performance, and conforming to all other solicitation requirements, and

(3) the Contracting Officer has no reason to believe the Offeror would be likely to offer other than fair and reasonable pricing. Price is not, however, an evaluated factor in this solicitation.

M.1.3. Source Selection Authority (SSA). The SSA will base the source selection decisions on an assessment of all source selection evaluation criteria (described below). While the Government source selection evaluation team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

M.1.4. On/Off-Ramps. The Government reserves the right to exercise “on ramp” and “off ramp” provisions as described in Section H of this solicitation to award additional contracts or remove and/or terminate contractors at any point within the ordering period.

M.1.5. Proposals Substantiation. Unsubstantiated and/or misleading claims, for even a single Past Experience evaluation criterion, may indicate that an Offeror’s proposed self-score is disingenuous and/or artificially inflated; therefore, the Offeror’s proposal may be determined to not qualify for award.

M.1.6. Discussions. Offerors are cautioned to submit their best proposal upfront. The Government intends to award without discussions. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions, if the Government determines it to be in its best interests. If it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, the SSA, with CO concurrence, will make a competitive range determination. Evaluation notices may be issued to the Offerors in the competitive range, responses will be requested from applicable Offerors, and discussions will be opened.

M.1.6.1. Final Proposal Revision. If the Government conducts and concludes discussions, the Government will request a Final Proposal Revision (FPR) from all Offerors remaining in the competitive range once discussions are closed. Formal responses to FPRs will be considered in making the award decision.

M.1.6.1.1. Any revision or non-concurrence to contract terms and conditions submitted in the FPR may not be subject to further discussion and may render the offer not qualifying, and therefore, ineligible for award. This provision is intended to preclude any misunderstandings by the Government, which could result if new or revised terms and conditions are submitted in the FPR that have not been fully disclosed, discussed, and understood during discussions. Hence, such new or revised terms and conditions are not solicited and, if submitted in the FPR, may render the offer unacceptable to the Government.

M.1.6.1.2. If the Government requests Final Proposal Revision, and if the Offeror's FPR submission creates/retains deficiencies or other adverse information, then such deficiencies or adverse information will be considered and may render the Offeror non-qualifying and ineligible for award.

M.1.7. Debriefings. The CO will promptly notify Offerors of any decision to exclude them from the source selection. After notification of exclusion, the Offeror may request and receive a debriefing IAW FAR 15.505. Offerors desiring a debriefing shall make their request IAW the requirements of FAR 15.505 or 15.506, as applicable. Offerors are entitled to no more than one debriefing.

M.2. ELIGIBILITY AND RESPONSIBILITY

M.2.1. Eligibility. To be eligible for award, Offerors must be determined to be a Qualifying Offeror (see paragraph M.1.2), meeting all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and other instructions identified within the solicitation. Offerors shall comply with content required within each of the proposal volumes and sections. Failure to comply with any requirement of the solicitation may result in the Offeror being determined not qualifying and ineligible for award. The Government will review the proposal documentation to ensure all required documentation was provided in response to the solicitation. The Government will rely on the provided documentation to facilitate the Contracting Officer’s determination of Contractor responsiveness.

M.2.2. Responsibility. No award shall be made to an Offeror unless the Contracting Officer determines them to be responsible. To be determined responsible, an Offeror shall meet the general standards described in FAR 9.104-1. Additionally, the Contracting Officer may also consider any other information provided within any volume of the proposal when making the determination of responsibility.

M.2.3. Responsibility Matters / Determination: Offerors shall complete and submit a copy of the attached Certification Regarding Responsibility Matters, Attachment 13 only. This certification will be used in conjunction with information obtained from the Determination of Responsibility Assistant (DORA), the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), and additional sources, in making a determination of the Offerors responsibility. This will not count against this volume’s page limitation. The government will use various sources to gather the additional information to make the determination of responsibility considering subparagraphs (a) through (h).

(a) Have adequate financial resources to perform the contract, or the ability to obtain them (see FAR 9.104-3(a)),

(b) Can comply with the required or proposed delivery or performance schedule, taking into consideration all existing commercial and governmental business commitments,

(c) Have a satisfactory performance record. A prospective contractor shall not be determined responsible or non-responsible solely on the basis of a lack of relevant performance history, except as provided in FAR 9.104-2,

(d) Have a satisfactory record of integrity and business ethics (for example, see FAR Subpart 42.15),

(e) Have the necessary organization, experience, accounting and operational controls, and technical skills, or the ability to obtain them (including, as appropriate, such elements as production control procedures, property control systems, quality assurance measures, and safety programs applicable to materials to be produced or services to be performed by the prospective contractor and subcontractors). (See FAR 9.104-3 (a).),

(f) Have the necessary production, construction, and technical equipment and facilities, or the ability to obtain them (see FAR 9.104-3(a)),

(g) Be otherwise qualified and eligible to receive an award under applicable laws and regulations (see also inverted domestic corporation prohibition at FAR 9.108), and

(h) Provide the name, physical mailing address, e-mail address, telephone number, and UEI number for any subcontractor identified in your proposal.

M.3. EVALUATION FACTORS

M.3.1. Evaluation Factors. In determining whether Offerors are "qualifying Offerors", the following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal:

Factor 1: Past Experience Factor 2: Past Performance

M.3.2. IAW 10 U.S.C. 3206 and FAR 15.304(c)(ii)(A), cost/price will not be evaluated during this source selection. Cost/Price will be evaluated for each TO IAW FAR 15.4. Additionally, IAW FAR 16.505(b), adequate price competition is expected at the task order level.

M.4. Factor 1 – Past Experience.

M.4.1. The basis of evaluation will include the Offeror’s demonstrated experience in performing the Specialty Areas and the performance objectives therein. These are identified in Attachment 1.

Performance Work Statement (PWS) and Attachment 2. PWS Supplement (Columns A & B), respectively. The evaluation of Past Experience focuses on the degree to which the Offeror has actually performed similar work. The assessment of the Offeror’s relevant experience will be used as a means of evaluating the technical capability of the Offeror to successfully meet the requirements of the solicitation and subsequent TOs. To demonstrate their Past Experience, the Offeror may submit up to two (2) Work Sample(s) for each scored Specialty Area (SA) identified in the Self-Scoring Matrix.

M.4.2. Work Sample Experience shall demonstrate accomplishment of the work described in the PWS and PWS Supplement for the corresponding SA. Up to two (2) Work Samples may achieve the maximum of ten (10) points per SA. Relevant Past Experience would be considered.

Work sample submissions provided by offeror’s team will only be considered if evidence of commitment is provided (see L.7.5). Additionally, Joint Ventures must demonstrate prerequisite requirements pertaining to protégé partners (see L.8.8). To achieve the score of five (5) points, a minimum of one (1) Work Sample must demonstrate the Offeror having experience performing the tasks described in the SA to be deemed relevant Past Experience. Two Work Samples cannot be provided from the same contract/TO for the same Specialty Area and receive the full 10 points. To receive 10 points for a Specialty Area Offeror must provide 2 different Work Samples. Offerors providing no Work Samples or submitting Work Samples outside the nature and scope of the SA will be deemed not relevant Past Experience and receive zero (0) points.

M.4.2.1. The Government will validate the Offeror’s self-scores using Attachment 8. Cross- Reference Matrix, Attachment 6. Work Sample Cover Sheet, and any associated Work Sample documentation submitted. The Government will review the Work Sample to validate that the Offeror’s experience is within the scope of the corresponding SA. If the Offeror’s experience cannot be validated based on the Work Sample(s), the Government may contact the POCs listed in the Work Sample Cover Sheet, or they may unilaterally lower the score, potentially down to zero (0) points. The Government will ONLY adjust the Offeror’s self-score downward, NOT upward. Any such adjustments are at the sole discretion of the Government. Once the Government has validated self-scores, the validated scores will then be entered in the Government’s portion of the Self Scoring Matrix.

M.4.3. An Offeror that is not technically acceptable will not be considered a qualifying Offeror for award. To meet the requirements of the solicitation and be technically acceptable, an Offeror must achieve a 90 percent or higher overall score of the maximum attainable points in Past Experience. The maximum attainable points are 310 (maximum 10 points per 31 EC2 Specialty Areas); therefore, the Offeror must achieve a score of 279 points (90% of the maximum attainable points). An Offeror that does not achieve a 90 percent or higher overall score will not advance to Past Performance scoring. If an Offeror fails to submit a completed Attachment 7.

Self Scoring Matrix, the Government will not assign a government validated Past Experience Score and the Offeror will be determined not technically acceptable, and therefore, not qualifying for award. The Government will evaluate Past Experience and assign an Acceptable or Unacceptable rating IAW the following criteria:

ADJECTIVAL RATING DESCRIPTION

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

M.5. Factor 2 – Past Performance.

M.5.1. The basis of Past Performance evaluation will focus the provisions below including how well (quality) the Offeror performed on the relevant projects submitted under Factor 1 – Past Experience. The Government will only assess Past Performance Information from Offerors with a qualifying Government Validated Score in Factor 1 – Past Experience. In addition to Offeror submitted Past Performance Information (PPI), the Government reserves the right to obtain information on the Offeror and any Subcontractor/Teaming Partner(s) from “other sources” which may include but not limited to: Determination of Responsibility Assistant (DORA), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), and others.

M.5.2. To be considered responsive, a complete Past Performance Submission consists of:

(1) Attachment 9. Past Performance Information Sheet AND

(2) Attachment 10. Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ (submitted by the Offeror’s client), OR

(3) a Contractor Performance Assessment Report (CPAR).

Past Performance Submissions must reflect work accomplished by the prime offeror or its team member as included in Attachment 4 (See L.7.5.). PPQs shall only be submitted in instances when CPAR information is unavailable (e.g., commercial contracts, subcontracted work, or initial CPAR is not finalized). Offerors shall only submit Past Performance Submissions based on contracts submitted in Volume III. The Offeror shall submit a minimum of two (2) and a maximum of five (5) contract references for the Past Performance Submission. The procedures and criteria used to evaluate and rate Past Performance Submissions is described below in M.5.3.

M.5.3. The Past Performance evaluation will be conducted in four (4) phases: recency assessment, relevancy assessment, performance quality assessment, and the performance confidence assessment. Each Past Performance submission will be determined as recent or not recent. Then, each recent Past Performance submission will receive a relevancy rating IAW the relevancy rating chart at M.5.3.2.1. Next, each Past Performance submission will be assessed for quality. Lastly, an integrated assessment of the aforementioned evaluation criteria will be used to assign an overall Performance Confidence Ratings IAW M.5.3.4.1. Only proposals with overall Performance Confidence Assessment Rating of “Substantial Confidence” will be considered eligible for award. Any proposals receiving an overall Past Performance Confidence Assessment Rating below “Substantial Confidence” will not be eligible for award and thus, will not be evaluated any further. The Offeror shall submit a proposal that clearly identifies and supports recency, relevancy, and quality based on the following definitions:

M.5.3.1. Recency Assessment. An evaluation of the Past Performance Information will be made to determine if it is recent. Past Performance Information will either be determined “Recent” or “Not Recent.” Recency is defined as active contract performance at least six months in duration and performance having been performed within the last three (3) years preceding the date of issuance of this solicitation; or contracts that were started prior to this time, but still in effect with active performance as of three (3) years from the date of this solicitation. If the proposal is not determined recent it will not be assessed further.

M.5.3.2. Relevancy Assessment. The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent Past Performance Information to determine how closely the services performed under those contracts relate to the services described in the PWS Attachment 1 and PWS Supplement Attachment 2. Specifically, relevancy is defined as similarity of scope and complexities to the unique government requirements under this contract, including the PWS (Attachment 1) and PWS Supplement (Attachment 2).

M.5.3.2.1. Offerors shall provide adequate Past Performance Information on completed or ongoing contracts (including Federal, State, local governmental and commercial contracts) to be considered most relevant in demonstrating the ability of the Offeror to perform the proposed work as identified in the PWS Attachment 1. and PWS Supplement Attachment 2. Each contract reference will receive a separate relevancy rating. The Government will evaluate relevancy and assign a relevancy rating for each recent PPI contract reference IAW the table below. Contract references determined not relevant will not be assessed any further.

ADJECTIVAL RATING DESCRIPTION

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and complexities this solicitation requires.

M.5.3.3. Performance Quality Assessment. The Government will then assess the quality of each Offeror’s submitted Past Performance record and any additional information the Government is able to obtain. The Government will consider information provided in the Past Performance Information Sheets, CPARS and PPQs. Pursuant to FAR 15.305(a)(2)(ii), the Government may also obtain and evaluate Past Performance Information from other sources, including but not limited to: the Determination of Responsibility Assistant (DORA), the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), the Defense Contract Management Agency, interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, Government customers and other sources to assess the quality of Offeror’s Past Performance.

M.5.3.3.1. Adverse Findings. The performance quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. An “Adverse Finding” is defined as Past Performance Information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. For adverse information identified, the performance quality assessment will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and whether corrective actions (see L.9.5.) were effective and resulted in sustained improvements. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance are demonstrated.

M.5.3.4. Past Performance Confidence Assessment. Lastly, the Government will assign a single Past Performance confidence rating. The Past Performance confidence rating is based on an integrated assessment of the Offeror’s overall recency, relevance, and quality of work performed provided by the Offeror or obtained by the Government. The confidence assessment may consider the source of the information and the credibility of the information (including potential bias).

M.5.3.4.1. Performance Confidence Ratings. The performance confidence ratings are described in the table below. To be determined qualified, an Offeror must achieve an overall “Substantial Confidence” rating during Factor 2 evaluation.

M.5.3.4.2. In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant Past Performance or for whom information on Past Performance is not available or is so sparse that no meaningful Past Performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on Past Performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown Past Performance and will be assigned a performance confidence rating of "Neutral." Therefore, to be a qualifying Offeror, an Offeror must receive a "Substantial Confidence" rating in Factor 2, Past Performance.

Performance Confidence Ratings

Adjectival Rating Description

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.

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 unfavorably on the factor of Past Performance.

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.

M.6. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

M.6.1. Evaluation Methodology. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal IAW the specified evaluation criteria and methodology, proceeding in three (3) steps:

M.6.1.1. Step One (1): The Government will review Offeror’s proposal to ensure it conforms to the instructions in Section L of this solicitation. The Government will reject any proposal that does not conform to this solicitation, deeming the Offeror nonresponsive thus the rejected proposal will not be evaluated any further. Next, the Government will evaluate each responsive proposal according to the aforementioned criteria to make an affirmative responsibility determination IAW FAR Part 9. Failure to achieve an affirmative responsibly determination will make the Offeror not qualifying for award.

M.6.1.2. Step Two (2): The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Past Experience (Volume III), validate the Offeror’s Self-Scoring Matrix by reviewing Work Samples, and if necessary, contacting up to all the POCs provided in the Work Sample Cover Sheet (Attachment 6). The Government will validate the score in the government portion of the Self-Scoring Matrix (Attachment 7). To advance past Step 2 and be determined technically acceptable, an Offeror must achieve a 90 percent or higher overall score of the maximum attainable points in Past Experience. The maximum attainable points are 310 (maximum 10 points per 31 EC2 Specialty Areas); therefore, the Offeror must achieve a score of 279 points (90% of the maximum attainable points). If the proposal fails to meet this criterion the Offeror will not move on to Step

3. An Offeror that does not meet this criterion will be determined not technically acceptable nor qualifying for award.

M.6.1.3. Step Three (3): The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Past Performance (Volume IV) and assign the Offeror a Performance Confidence Rating. The Offeror must receive a Performance Confidence Rating of SUBSTANTIAL CONFIDENCE. If the Offeror receives any Performance Confidence Rating other than SUBSTANTIAL CONFIDENCE, it will render the Offeror not qualifying for award.

M.6.2. As prescribed in M.1.2, the Government will determine "Qualifying Offerors." The Contracting Officer will determine if there is any reason to believe respective Offerors would be likely to offer other than fair and reasonable pricing. The Government will make an award to each and all Qualifying Offerors.

END of SECTION M

For