SECTION_M_20180212.docx

SECTION M: EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD DRAFT

By submission of a proposal, the Offeror represents that its team is capable of performing all requirements and meeting all standards specified in the solicitation and included in the proposal.

1 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

Source Selection Methodology. This acquisition will utilize the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection procedure in accordance with FAR 15.101-2 and 15.3 as supplemented by the DoD Source Selection Procedures referenced in Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) 215.3 to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal is technically acceptable, conforms to all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, technical requirements, and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation described in this section. The Government intends to award one contract as a result of this solicitation.

All proposals will be first evaluated based on the Total Evaluated Price (TEP). Table L-3 Pricing Summary or Offeror’s comparable table will be used as the basis for price evaluation. The lowest priced Offeror’s proposed technical factor will be evaluated for acceptability on an “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” basis. If the lowest priced Offeror’s technical factor is found to be acceptable, then no further evaluations will be conducted and award will be made. If the lowest priced Offeror’s technical factor is not acceptable, the next lowest priced proposal will be evaluated, and so on until a proposal meeting technical requirements is achieved. 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.

1.1 Total Small Business (SB) Set-Aside. This acquisition is a total SB set-aside under North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code 541330, Engineering Services, with a small business size standard of $38.5 million. An offeror determined to be other than small business cannot receive a 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.

1.2 Discussions. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions.

1.3 Solicitation Cross Reference Matrix. The matrix will be utilized as a tool to show critical interrelationships and dependencies among the technical requirements documents. The matrix will help Offerors ensure they have responded to all the evaluation criteria and proposal submittal requirements identified in the RFP. If the matrix conflicts with any other requirement, direction, or provision of this RFP, the other reference shall take precedence. Section M references in the matrix are for informational purposes only, and the Government shall be obligated to evaluate proposals solely in conformance with the provisions of Section M of the solicitation.

2 VOLUME I, CONTRACT DOCUMENTATION AND PRICE

2.1 Volume I, Section 1: Contract Documentation

The complete proposal must have been properly received prior to the submission due date and time. All required documentation was included and all data complete and accurate. Proposal content and format are as instructed. The offer is signed by an authorized individual.

OCI Mitigation Plan. In the event an actual or potential OCIs with respect to the performance of itself or its subcontractors or teammates is identified, the Offeror’s proposed Organizational Conflict of Interest Mitigation Plan must be acceptable to the Government. Any proposed avoidance or mitigation techniques shall be consistent with FAR 9.5 and the most recent decisions of the Government Accountability Office and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. The OCI Mitigation Plan will be evaluated in accordance with FAR 9 and against SMC’s OCI Mitigation Plan Checklist (Attachment 6) to ensure all OCIs are sufficiently avoided, neutralized, or mitigated. Ongoing, limited exchanges may take place regarding OCI concerns, questions or clarifications; these exchanges will not constitute discussions.

Professional Compensation Plan. In the event an Offeror asserts their intent to utilize professional employees, the Professional Employee Compensation Plan submitted in response to the solicitation will be evaluated in accordance with FAR clause 52.222-46. The Compensation Plan will be relied upon as one of the elements in determining if an offeror is responsible and subsequently factor in to the determination of eligibility for award.

2.2 PRICE FACTOR

The Government will evaluate the reasonableness of the Offeror’s TEP by using one or more of the techniques described in FAR 15.404. For source selection evaluation purposes only, the TEP calculation shall include: CLINs 0001, 1001, 2001, 3001, 4001, 5001, 6001, and 7001 (possible 52.217-8 extension). The TEP calculation excludes:

· The budgeted ODC amounts provided by the Government for CLINs 0002, 1002, 2002, 3002, 4002, 5002, 6002, and 7002;

· Deliverables identified under CLINs 0003, 1003, 2003, 3003, 4003, 5003, and 6003 are Not Separately Priced; and

· The proposed price for the Phase-In Transition Services CLIN 0004 and Phase-In Transition ODCs CLIN 0005 will not be included in the TEP calculation but shall be included in the offeror's price proposal.

For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed prices for unbalanced pricing in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g). This assessment will use price analysis techniques to determine whether the price of one or more contract line items is significantly overstated or understated despite an acceptable total evaluated contract price.

To account for the option period(s) possible under FAR 52.217-8 (maximum six months), the Government will take the price for the final option period, i.e. CLIN 6001, and prorate it to a six-month value. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

2.3 TECHNICAL FACTOR

During the evaluation process, the Government will base its evaluation on the Offeror’s responses to the associated instructions for Factor/Subfactors in Section L. Deficiencies in other areas that fail to meet the stated requirements of the solicitation or do not conform to the terms and conditions will be considered non-responsive, non-complaint, or otherwise ineligible. Proposals will be evaluated on an Acceptable or Unacceptable basis. If an Offeror receives an "Unacceptable" rating in any subfactor, the factor will receive an "Unacceptable" rating and the Offeror’s proposal will not be eligible for award. All Subfactors are of equal importance to each other. Each subfactor will receive a single rating. In order to be considered awardable, there must be an “acceptable” rating in every subfactor criterion. Descriptions of the ratings are taken from the DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table C-1, excerpted below:

2.3.1 SUBFACTOR 1 – Phase-In Plan: The Government will evaluate whether the Offeror’s proposal meets the requirements for staffing leadership, management and technical personnel for all GEARSS performance locations. The criteria are met when the Offeror:

2.3.1.1 Provides a Phase-In Plan that demonstrates a clear understanding of the requirements to ensure leadership and management personnel are ready to execute requirements at contract award and the beginning of transition IAW PWS 3.8.2 STD #1.

2.3.1.2 Provides a Phase-In Plan that demonstrates a clear understanding of the requirements to ensure all technical staff to perform GEARSS II PWS tasks are ready to execute requirements at contract start and the conclusion of transition IAW PWS 3.8.2 STD #2 – STD #4.

2.3.1.3 Provides a Phase-In Plan that demonstrates a clear understanding of the requirements to ensure all technical staff to perform GEARSS II PWS tasks are ready to execute requirements at DCO task start IAW PWS 3.8.2 STD #5 – STD #6.

2.3.2 SUBFACTOR 2: Critical Staffing. This subfactor evaluates the proposal to determine if the proposal meets the requirements for staffing the overall effort as identified below. The criteria are met when the Offeror:

2.3.2.1 Demonstrates a clear understanding of its ability to provide staffing sufficient to perform paragraphs 3.2.1, 3.3.1, 3.3.10, 3.4.1, 3.4.3, 3.4.5, 3.5.1, and 3.6.1 of the PWS.

2.3.2.2 Demonstrates a clear understanding of sufficient hiring procedures to provide staffing to perform the requirements in the PWS.

2.3.2.3 Provides an organizational structure with detailed skill mixes and hours that demonstrates a clear understanding that all tasks in the PWS will be properly executed and managed.

2.3.3 SUBFACTOR 3: Technical Process Approach. The Government will evaluate whether the Offeror’s proposal meets the requirements for technical understanding. The criteria are met when the Offeror:

2.3.3.1 Provides an overall proposed approach that demonstrates a clear understanding of the technical and operational environment described in PWS 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5 and 3.6.

2.3.3.2 Proposes in Attachment 3, Rights in Data that satisfies the Government’s minimum needs as described in this RFP.