SAOSS_RFP_Section_M.docx

SECTION M

Evaluation Criteria

SMC/SY Specialized Acquisition and Operations Security Support (SAOSS) Services

Date: 13 February 2018

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION--SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.104

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Section M – Page 18 of 24

1. SOURCE SELECTION

1.1 Basis for Award

This acquisition will utilize the Tradeoff source selection procedures in accordance with FAR 15.101-2 and 15.3 as supplemented by the DoD Source Selection Procedures issued 01 Apr 2016, and referenced in DFARS 215.300 and the AFFARS Mandatory Procedures 5315.3 to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. The Government intends to award one contract as a result of this solicitation. In using the best value approach, the Government seeks to award to the offeror who gives the Air Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet or exceed our requirements affordably in a way that will be advantageous to the Government. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced offeror where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the lower technical risk and/or superior past and present performance of the higher priced offeror is worth the price premium. To arrive at a best value decision, the SSA will integrate the source selection team’s evaluations of the factors and subfactors described in this provision. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the tradeoff process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the selection process. Offerors are reminded that the Government will only evaluate one proposal from each offeror. Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal conforms to all required terms and conditions, includes all required representations and certifications, meets all requirements set forth in the RFP, has acceptable Small Business Participation, and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation as described in paragraph II below.

1.2 Definitions

1.2.1 "Key" personnel are defined as those subject matter experts (SMEs) whose resumes will be evaluated as part of the evaluation criteria. They are identified in the PWS Attachment VI and on the Government reference Key Personnel staffing matrix.

1.2.2 "Critical" personnel are defined as those personnel who must be available, in place, and clearable on Day 1 of the contract. This includes the "Key" personnel. (i.e. "Key" personnel are a subset of the larger group of "Critical" personnel.) They are identified in the PWS Attachment VI and the Government reference Day 1 staffing matrix.

1.2.3 "Important" personnel are specifically defined in the Section M discussion of Past Performance evaluation. It is up to the offerors to identify if they have any personnel they wish to have considered as "important" for past performance consideration.

1.2.4 “Business Associate” is defined as any type of subcontractor, vendor, partner, interdivisional entity, teammate, affiliate, joint venture, or other arrangement, other than the offeror itself, which will perform the contract requirements.

2. Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representation and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as factors/subfactors and assessments/evaluation (e.g., FAR 9.104, Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI), Professional Employee Compensation FAR 52.222-46). Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the Offeror being ineligible for award.

2.1 Discussions

The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary. Any discussions will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.306. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer, with the concurrence of the Source Selection Authority, may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

2.2 Responsibility

No award will be made unless the Contracting Officer makes an affirmative determination of responsibility. To be determined responsible, an Offeror shall meet, at a minimum, each of the general standards described in FAR 9.104-1. The provided documentation will be relied upon to facilitate the Contracting Officer's determination of contractor responsibility. This will include the review of potential Organizational Conflicts of Interest, and Professional Employee Compensation Plan.

3. Factors, Subfactors and Relative Importance

3.1 Factors and Subfactors:

A detailed and complete analysis of each offeror’s proposal will be performed. The Government’s evaluation will be based on the following factors and subfactors:

Factor I. Past Performance

Factor II: Technical (which includes both Technical and Technical Risk Ratings)

Subfactor One: Key Personnel Subfactor Two: Day 1 Staffing Matrix Subfactor Three: Day 30 Staffing Matrix Subfactor Four: Small Business Participation and Plan

Factor III. Cost/Price

3.2 Relative Importance:

Among the evaluation factors considered in the tradeoff decision, past performance is significantly more important than technical (which includes the technical rating and technical risk rating). Technical is significantly more important than cost/price. All evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price. Within Factor II, which includes the technical rating and technical risk rating, subfactor 1 and subfactor 2 are equally important, and individually more important than subfactor 3. Subfactor 3 is significantly more important than subfactor 4.

Proposal Evaluation The evaluation process will be accomplished as follows (Organized by volume)

4. Volume I, Completed Solicitation

4.1 Professional Employee Compensation Plan:

The total compensation plan and supporting information will be evaluated per FAR 52.222-46 to assure it reflects a sound management approach and understanding of the contract requirements. Failure by the offeror/populated joint venture/each joint venture partner in an unpopulated joint venture to submit this total compensation plan will result in the offeror being considered as failing to meet the RFP terms and conditions. If, after evaluation, the Government determines that the Offeror has not provided sufficient justification to support its compensation plan in accordance with FAR 52.222-46, the Government may determine that Offeror not responsible.

4.2 Model Contract and Attachments

The submitted Model Contract and all attachments are complete and accurate.

5. Volume II, Technical Factor

5.1 General: Each offeror’s written technical proposal shall be evaluated, based on the subfactors below, to determine the extent that the offeror provides a compliant approach that meets the requirements of the PWS, and demonstrates a knowledge and understanding of those requirements. The technical proposal must address each of the following subfactors in a detailed description with sound rationale.

5.1.1 Subfactor One – Key Personnel: This requirement is met when offeror-provided resumes meet the Government’s requirements for the Key Personnel identified in the PWS Attachments V and VI and the Government reference Attachment L-1, SAOSS Key Personnel Staffing Matrix. The Government will evaluate the resumes for expertise, experience, education, and training, which are in descending order of importance. Expertise and experience individually are more important than education and training individually. Proposing personnel who do not have a current TS clearance with SCI eligibility and the necessary security documentation (PSQ) may be assessed as a weakness or significant weakness.

5.1.2 Subfactor Two – Day 1 Staffing: This requirement is met when the offeror’s Proposed Day 1 Staffing Matrix identifies qualified personnel for every position identified in the PWS Attachments V and VI. The Government will evaluate the personnel identified for experience, education, and training, each with approximately equal value, in accordance with the Offeror’s Proposal Staffing Matrix to the Government’s PWS Attachments V and VI and the Government reference Attachment L-2, SAOSS Day 1 Staffing Matrix. Proposing personnel who do not have a current TS clearance with SCI eligibility and the necessary security documentation (PSQ) may be assessed as a weakness or significant weakness.

5.1.3 Subfactor Three – Day 30 Staffing: This requirement is met when the offeror’s Proposed Day 30 Staffing Matrix identifies qualified personnel for every position identified in the PWS Attachment V. The Government will evaluate the personnel identified for experience, education, and training, each with approximately equal value, in accordance with the Offeror’s Proposal Staffing Matrix to the Government’s PWS Attachments V and the Government reference Attachment L-3, SAOSS Day 30 Staffing Matrix. Proposing personnel who do not have a current TS clearance with SCI eligibility and the necessary security documentation (PSQ) may be assessed as a weakness or significant weakness.

5.1.4 Subfactor Four – Small Business Participation: This requirement is met when the offeror’s submitted Exhibit D, Small Business Participation Commitment Document, as well as a Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Exhibit E) if the offeror is a large business, meets or exceeds the minimum quantitative requirement (MQR) of 8% of the total contract value in awards to small businesses. This required information will be used to evaluate the extent of the proposed participation/commitment to use U.S. small businesses in the performance of this acquisition (as small business prime offerors or small business subcontractors) for Factor II, Subfactor 4 Small Business Participation. Failure to meet the minimum 8% small business participation goal shall make the proposal unawardable. Small Business commitments are governed by FAR 52.219-9 and FAR 52-219-16 and are contractual requirements.

5.2 Technical Rating Method

A technical rating from the table below will be assigned to all the technical subfactors that corresponds to their acceptable/unacceptable assessment Table 5.1

5.3 Technical Risk Rating

Technical risk, which is manifested by the identification of weakness(es) in an offeror’s proposed approach for the requirements of the solicitation, considers potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and/or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. The evaluation shall address the Source Selection Team’s identification of any weaknesses and/or significant weaknesses. Technical subfactors 1, 2, and 3 will receive one of the Technical Risk ratings described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, excerpted below.

Table 5.2 Technical Risk Rating Method:

Definitions:

Deficiency: A deficiency is a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. See FAR 15.001.

Weakness: A weakness means a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

Significant Weakness: A significant weakness in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

6 Volume III, Past Performance

6.1 General

The past performance assessment will assess the offeror’s and/or its business associate’s ability to successfully perform the proposed effort based on the recency, relevance, and quality of the offeror’s/business associate’s demonstrated present and past work record. A critical business associate is defined as any and all business associates, other than the offeror itself, which will perform 20% or more of the effort based on dollar value. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s/business associate’s demonstrated record of contract performance in providing services that meet the contract’s requirements, including cost, schedule, and performance. The recency and relevancy of the information, the source of the information, and context of the data, will be considered for impacts, general trends, and quality of the contractor’s performance. For purposes of this evaluation, recency is defined as active or completed efforts performed within the past five (5) years from the issuance date of this solicitation. The Government will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies (if used), business associates, or corporate management if such was provided for evaluation and if the offeror’s past performance volume demonstrates the company, affiliate, or division will provide the offeror with resources for the instant proposed effort, including; workforce, management, or other capabilities demonstrating direct and meaningful involvement in the performance of the proposed instant effort.

6.2 Past Performance Assessment

In assessing past performance, the Government will employ the approaches in the DoD Source Selection Procedures (31 March 2016), some of which are identified below:

6.2.1 Other Sources of Information

Pursuant to FAR 15.305(a)(2)(ii), the Past Performance Team evaluation is not limited to review of the information provided in the offeror’s Past Performance volume. Past performance information may be obtained from the Government’s Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) and the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS). The Government reserves the right to use performance information from other sources such as Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), Fee Determining Officials, or commercial sources. Data from previous source selections may be used if the data is recent and relevant.

6.2.1.1 Adverse Past Performance

Offerors shall be given an opportunity to address adverse past performance information if the offeror, business associate, joint venture member and/or critical business associate has not had a previous opportunity to respond to the information. Recent and relevant contracts will be examined to ensure that corrective measures have been implemented. The past performance evaluation assessment will consider issues including the number, impact, and severity of the problems, the appropriateness and/or effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised), and the overall work record. Prompt corrective action in isolated instances may not outweigh overall negative impacts or trends.

6.2.1.2 Important Past Performance Personnel

For offerors/business associates who either have no prior recent and relevant contracts or do not possess recent and relevant corporate past performance, but have important personnel with recent and relevant past performance while employed by another company, the quality of such personnel’s performance as verified by the Past Performance Team will be considered if the submitted recent and relevant contract involves the important personnel performing the same or similar role currently being proposed on the instant acquisition. Offerors are reminded that a letter of intent to hire does not constitute employment.

6.2.1.1 Programmatic/Logistical Scope and Magnitude of Effort and Complexities Scope and magnitude of effort and complexities in the above definitions not only includes the technical complexities identified for each effort, but also the programmatic and logistical considerations including total FTE, length of effort, dollar values, and number of units or organizations supported. When assigning a relevancy rating to a contract effort, the Government will consider the technical complexities, and the programmatic and logistical scope and magnitude of effort as separate aspects. If these aspects are not reflected in the submitted contract effort, the overall relevancy rating assigned to that contract may be affected.

The Programmatic and Logistical Scope and Magnitude of Effort and Technical Complexities to be used in the relevancy evaluation are based on the scope, magnitude of work, and technical complexities for the instant acquisition SAOSS. They will be evaluated for similar scope, magnitude, and complexity in the aggregate to the requirements of this RFP in the categories of Security Support to Acquisition Programs, Cybersecurity, and Security Support to AFSPC Operational Units.

6.2.2 Relevancy Descriptions

The Government will perform an independent determination of relevancy of the data provided or obtained. A relevancy determination will be made for each of the recent four (4) submitted contracts. The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of relevancy. The following relevancy criteria apply and will be assigned to each effort identified in an offeror’s Volume III of its proposal:

· VERY RELEVANT: Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

· RELEVANT: Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

* SOMEWHAT RELEVANT:. Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

* NOT RELEVANT:. Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

6.3 Past Performance Evaluation Ratings

As a result of the recency, relevancy and quality assessments of the contracts evaluated, one of the ratings as described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures will be assigned to the Past Performance factor. The performance confidence assessment ratings are excerpted below:

Table 6.1

6.3.1 In the case of an offerors for which there is no information on past contract performance or where past contract performance information is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). In this case, the offeror’s past performance is unknown and assigned a performance confidence rating of “neutral.” Although the SSEB may not rate an offeror that lacks recent and relevant past performance favorably or unfavorably with regard to past performance, the SSAC may recommend and the SSA may determine that a “Substantial Confidence” or “Satisfactory Confidence” past performance rating is worth more than a “Neutral Confidence” past performance rating in a best value tradeoff as long as the determination is consistent with stated solicitation criteria.

7 Volume IV, Cost Factor

7.1 Government Cost/Price Evaluation

The offeror’s cost/price proposal Total Proposed Price (TPP) will be evaluated for reasonableness, realism, and unbalanced pricing. In the evaluation, the Government may use data external to the offeror’s proposal in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. For all CLIN types, the evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise such options. The government-calculated Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be presented to the Source Selection Authority for the best value trade-off decision. TEP will not include travel or rent costs, but will incorporate ODCs if they are proposed.

7.2 Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

The Government will calculate a TEP as shown below:

Table 7.1

CLIN

(A) Title (B) Contract Type (C) Cost $ (D) Fee $ (E) Total CLIN Amount (D + E)

TEP

Summation of above totals

7.2.1 Fixed Fee and Performance Incentive Pool

The total fee shall not exceed 3% of the total estimated cost that excludes the cost of money. In addition to the fixed fee, no more than 5% of the total estimated cost (excluding cost of money) shall be reserved for objective performance incentive pool (OPIP) outlined in Attachment 3 of the model contract

7.3 Evaluation Area Details

The proposal must contain sufficient details for the government evaluation of the following areas:

7.3.1 Reasonableness)

The offeror’s proposal will be assessed for reasonableness, where reasonableness will be an assessment of whether the price is too high. In conducting the reasonableness analysis, the Government will use one or more analysis techniques described in FAR 15.404-1. A determination of unreasonableness will render the proposal unawardable. In addition, proposals that have been assessed to be technically unacceptable are ineligible for award, and as a result, a reasonableness determination will not be made for technically unacceptable, unawardable proposals.

7.3.2 Realism

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. (FAR 15.404-1(d)(1)). The offeror’s proposal will be assessed for cost realism; cost realism analyses shall be performed on cost-reimbursement contracts to determine the probable cost of performance for each offeror. (FAR 15.404-1(d)(2).

The offeror’s proposed costs as provided in the Price Volume will be evaluated via a cost analysis approach. This process involves the Government’s review and evaluation of specific cost elements of the Offeror’s price/cost. Any proposed cost element may be adjusted based upon the Government analysis of each proposed cost element. The cost analysis will consider the offeror’s proposed approach. Cost adjustments will consider weaknesses in the technical proposal that impact the costs. Cost adjustments will also consider missing costs that will likely be incurred for the contract with the proposed solution. Cost adjustments will consider any Offeror-initiated unsubstantiated decrements to historical hours/costs. The cost adjustments will result in the Government’s Most Probable Cost that will be added to the TEP calculation for best value consideration. The realism assessment will focus on whether the proposed price is too low. Therefore, all cost adjustments will be upward; there will not be any downward adjustments.

No MPC adjustment will be made for deficiencies; however, deficiencies may render your proposal unrealistic. The offeror’s proposal must be clear and convincing in demonstrating that the costs in the offeror’s proposal are realistic for the work to be performed, reflect a clear understanding of the requirements, and are consistent with the offeror’s technical proposal (FAR 15.404-1(d)). Over-proposing of unwanted tasks and associated costs will NOT result in a probable cost adjustment but may result in an unreasonableness determination. An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of realism poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

7.3.3 Unbalanced Pricing (Applies to all contract line items) The offeror’s proposal will be assessed for the presence of unbalanced pricing in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g). Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

7.3.4 Total Proposed Price (TPP)

The offeror’s proposal will be assessed for accuracy in calculating the proposed Total Proposed Price (TPP) and for compliance with the instructions for calculating the proposed Total Proposed Price.

7.3.5 Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

The Government will adjust the TPP to incorporate the Government’s Most Probable cost (developed under paragraph 7.3.2) resulting in the government-calculated TEP. Again, TEP will not include travel or rent costs, but will incorporate ODCs if they are proposed. The TEP will be used by the Source Selection Authority in the best value decision process.

7.3.6 Insufficient details to support the determination of reasonableness, realism, or non-presence of unbalanced pricing, initially or subsequently, may be a consideration for excluding the offeror’s proposal from the competitive range and further consideration for award. The burden of proof rests with the offeror.

7.3.7 Data in Volume I (Model Contract) will be compared to the CLIN amounts and Rate Schedules in the Price Volume to ensure that the prices in the Price Volume flow to the CLINs in a consistent and accurate manner.