SLISS Draft Section M 31 Jan 12.docx

Draft Section M Evaluation Factors for Award SMC/SL Space Logistics Infrastructure Support Services (SLISS)

FA8823-12-R-0002

31 Jan 12

To be eligible for award, Offerors are required to comply with all terms and conditions, and technical requirements, listed in Section L, Instructions, Conditions, and Notice to Offeror. Failure to comply will result in the Offeror being removed from consideration.

A. Small Business Set-Aside

1. This acquisition is a small business set aside under North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code 541512 with a small business size standard of $25,000,000. Services are for infrastructure support to the Space and Missile Systems Center, Space Logistics Directorate (SMC/SL) programs.

2. An offeror determined to be other than small business cannot receive contract award. Offerors are strongly encouraged to avoid proposed business arrangements that could be construed as other than small business in consideration of the Small Business Administration (SBA) Ostensible Subcontractor Rule.

B. Basis of Award

1. This effort will be awarded to the Offeror whose proposal meets the requirements of the RFP, the established evaluation criteria, and provides the best value to the Government in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation 15.101-2. To conduct the best value assessment, the Offerors’ proposals will be evaluated using the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) process whereby the Government shall rank by price, and then evaluate the lowest price proposal for acceptability of the services to determine if a proposal is technically acceptable. Award will be made on the basis of the lowest price proposal meeting the acceptability standards for non-cost factors. Offerors are notified that the Government may only evaluate one offeror’s proposal.

2. Proposals will be evaluated for acceptability, but not ranked using the non-price factors. These non-price factors represent those specific characteristics that are tied to significant requirements. They are the uniform baseline against which Offerors’ proposal will be evaluated allowing the Government to make a determination of acceptability. In order to be considered awardable, there must be an “acceptable” rating in every non-price factor and subfactor. The non-price factors are: Cost Efficiency Initiatives Process, Staffing and Personnel Experience, Transition Plan, and Past Performance.

3. Pre-award notices of exclusion from competitive range: The contracting officer will notify offerors promptly in writing when their proposals are excluded from the competitive range or otherwise eliminated from the competition. IAW FAR 15.505, the offeror may request a pre-award debriefing by submitting a written request for debriefing to the contracting officer within 3 days after receipt of the notice of exclusion from the competition. At the offeror‟s request, this debriefing may be delayed until after award. If the debriefing is delayed until after award, it shall include all information normally provided in a post-award debriefing (see 15.506(d)). The contracting officer shall make every effort to debrief the unsuccessful offeror as soon as practicable, but may refuse the request for a debriefing if, for compelling reasons, it is not in the best interests of the Government to conduct a debriefing at that time.

4. The competitive award will result in a single, Firm Fixed Price contract.

Acceptability of Services

The Government technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals assigning ratings of “Acceptable or “Unacceptable” for each of the following factors and subfactors.

1. Technical

Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings

The proposals shall be evaluated against the following subfactors:

Subfactor 1 – Cost Efficiency Initiatives Process

This standard is met when the offeror clearly describes efficient and effective processes for identifying, assessing, evaluating, and implementing cost efficiency initiatives to achieve continuous cost reduction. The offeror’s processes will be validated through their incorporation in the price for the contract resulting in downward outyear prices.

Subfactor 2 – Staffing and Personnel Experience

In order to receive an acceptable rating for Staffing and Personnel Experience, ALL elements below must be rated as “Acceptable.” This standard is met when the offeror clearly demonstrates:

(a) Allocation of Resources: This standard is met when the offeror clearly provide a separate organizational chart with the information requested in Section L that demonstrates a complete and thorough understanding of the resources required to meet the Government requirements.

i. Full Time Equivalent (FTE) Assignments proposals must provide provisions for back-up. Additionally, provide a list Subject Matter Experts (SME) (ref table 1) for:

1. Cost Estimating

2. Information Technology

3. Facilities Engineering

(b) This standard is met when the offeror clearly demonstrates sufficient staffing levels and skill mix to successfully execute the requirements of the PWS, showing sufficient staffing such that at least 50% of the proposed labor charges will be incurred by the offeror’s employees.

(c) This standard is met when the offeror provides rationale that clearly discusses how the anticipated skill mix will be able to cover the workloads of SMC/SL functional areas (Information Technology, Facilities, Financial Management, Office Administration, SBIRS SAFB support, and Human Resources) while also having the ability to simultaneously support travel, meetings, and quick-turn around taskers for each Program.

(d) This standard is met when the offeror provides resume-like material that clearly meets all of the elements specified in the technical acceptability criteria for functional area (for example: IT, Facilities, Financial Management, Schriever Support), and labor category (Junior, Mid, Senior, Manager, etc) proposed.

Table 1

Subfactor 3 – Transition Plan and Quality Control Plan

(a) In order to receive an acceptable rating for Transition Plan, ALL elements below must be rated as “Acceptable.” This standard is met when the offeror clearly demonstrates:

1. This standard is met when the offeror clearly provides a Staffing Plan demonstrating:

a. A complete and thorough transition plan that fully supports requirements from day 1 of the contract and achieves full capability within 30 days with no adverse impact to mission.

b. All SMEs and all senior analysts (of which XXX FTE must have a Top Secret clearance) must be available to work on the first day of the contract.

c. The remaining team must be available to work within XX days of contract award. However, if no SMEs or seniors are proposed for a particular function (Information Technology, Information Assurance, Facilities Engineering, and Financial Management, etc.), a full explanation must be provided of how the mission will be executed starting from the first day of the contract with no mission impacts.

2. Security Clearances Top Secret (TS) FTEs are required for the

i. Cost Estimating

ii. SBIRS SAFB

iii. All Network Infrastructure Engineers must possess and maintain a SSBI investigation level

iv. All other personnel proposed to support this effort must possess and maintain a minimum of a SECRET clearance.

(b) This standard is met when the offeror provides a Quality Control Plan(QPC) that demonstrates a complete and thorough understanding of the PWS and the measures necessary to attain quality of performance as required under this contract.

2. Past Performance

If deemed necessary, the Contracting Officer (CO) shall seek relevant performance information on all offerors based on (1) the past and present efforts provided by the offeror and (2) data independently obtained from other government and commercial sources.

Recency includes contracts performed within three (3) years of the RFP. Relevant past performance includes efforts within three (3) years of the RFP that are similar to or greater in scope, magnitude, and complexity than the effort described in this solicitation. Relevant contracts for cost estimating requirements include contracts with Federal Agencies in support of National Security Space or commercial space activities and contracts with companies in support of National Security Space or commercial space activities. Relevant contracts for all other requirements of this RFP include contracts with Federal Agencies and companies in support of Federal Government acquisition and sustainment activities. The Government will assess the relevancy of each contract referenced by an offeror. In assessing relevancy, the Government will consider similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontracting.

The past performance evaluation results are an assessment of the Offerors’ (and if applicable, their teammates) probability of meeting the minimum past performance requirements. This assessment is based on recent and relevant past performance information that pertains to the requirements outlined in the PWS. The assessment process will result in overall past performance evaluation rating of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” as defined:

Unacceptable Based on the Offerors’ and, if applicable, their teammates’ performance record, the Government has no reasonable expectation that the Offerors’ or, if applicable, their teammates’ will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Note: In the case of an Offeror or, if applicable, their teammate without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror or, if applicable, their teammate may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the Offeror or, if applicable, their teammate shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.”

3. Price Evaluation

The Government shall rank all proposals receiving “acceptability of Services” rating of “Acceptable” by proposed price. In accordance with FAR 15.101-2, the evaluation of price will include the proposed labor prices for the contract to perform the tasks identified in the PWS, including option years. The government will evaluate price reasonableness by 2 factors: lowest price and the existence or nonexistence of adequate competition.

4. Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and in the format specified in Section L. Communication 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.

5. The government intends to award the contract without discussion with respective offerors. The Government, however, reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest.

FA8823-12-R-0002 SLISS Draft Section M Page 1 of 6 image2.emf

Microsoft_Office_Excel_Worksheet2.xlsx Qualifications

Technical Acceptability Criteria - Facilities

Reqd. Reqd. Substitute for Experience Reqd. Reqd. Reqd.

Degree/ Courses DoD Certification- Substitute for Experience ("n" yrs) "n" years AUTOCAD wInsight Exp SEER H and SEER-SEM

Mechanical Engineer Bachelors* 10*

Electrical Engineer Bachelors* 10*

*10yrs or Bachelors

&F &P of &N &A image3.emf

Microsoft_Office_Excel_Worksheet3.xlsx Qualifications

Technical Acceptability Criteria - Cost

Reqd. Reqd. Substitute for Experience Reqd. Reqd. Reqd.

Degree/ Courses Experience** Certification- Substitute for Experience ("n" yrs) "n" years Microsoft Office ACEIT CER Development or Usage

Cost Est Junior Bachelors* 2 DAU Bus FM/CE Lvl 1 or Equiv (SCEA PCEA) 1 1 2 0 0

Cost Est Mid Bachelors* 5 DAU Bus FM/CE Lvl 2 or Equiv (SCEA-CCEA) 2 2 3 3 0

Cost Est SME Bachelors 13 DAU Bus FM/CE Lvl 3 or Equiv (SCEA-CCEA) 4 4 3 4 2

* Engineering degree may substituted for one (1) year of experience

** Half of the Cost Estimating experience must be space-related acquisition experience within an Acquistion Program Office or Contractor

Technical Acceptability Criteria - Schedule

Reqd. Reqd. Substitute for Experience Reqd. Reqd. Reqd. Reqd. Reqd.

Degree/ Courses Space Experience: DoD/ NASA - Yrs** Certification- Substitute for Experience ("n" yrs) "n" years Microsoft Suite Exp ACEIT Exp MS Project Exp wInsight Exp SEER H and SEER-SEM

Scheduler Junior Bachelors 2 DAU Bus/FM Lvl 1 or Equiv (PMI CAPM) or Equiv (AACE PSP) 1 1 2 2 1

** Must be DoD/NASA experience within an Acquistion Program Office or Contractor

*** 1 year of Microsoft Project experience may be substituted with a Microsoft Project certification

&F &P of &N &A image4.emf

Microsoft_Office_Excel_Worksheet4.xlsx Qualifications

Technical Acceptability Criteria - Schriever Support

Reqd. Reqd. Substitute Reqd. Reqd. Reqd.

Degree Experience ("n" yrs) Experience Substitute for Degree ("n" years) Dod 8570.01-M

Baseline/Industry Standard Computing Environment (CE) Other Certification

Help Desk Technician Bachelors 2 5 IAT-1 Windows Workstation

Lead Admin Bachelors 2 5 Microsoft Suite Exp

&F &P of &N &A image1.emf

Microsoft_Office_Excel_Worksheet1.xlsx Sheet1

Technical Acceptability Criteria - IT

Reqd. Reqd. Substitute Reqd. Reqd. Reqd.

Degree Experience ("n" yrs) Experience Substitute for Degree ("n" yrs) DoD 8570.01-M

Baseline/ Industry Standard Computing Environment (CE) Other Certification

Telecommunications Technician Bachelors 3 2 IAT-1

Help Desk Technician Bachelors 2 2 IAT-1 Windows Workstation Security +

Server Administrator Bachelors 2 2 IAT-1 Windows Server

Network Engineer Bachelors 3 2 IAT-2 Cisco CCENT

Software/Web Developer Bachelors 2 2 IAT-1

IA Manager Bachelors 3 2 IAT-2 Security +

EMSEC Certifier Bachelors 5 2 IAT-1 EMSEC Security Manager course E3OZR33S3A