GEITA11_Section_M_FVersion_dated_27Mar2012_Amend02.docx

PART IV – REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

PART IV – REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

NOTICE: The following solicitation provisions pertinent to this section are hereby incorporated by reference:

FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION SOLICITATION PROVISIONS

II. NOTICE: The following solicitation provisions pertinent to this section are hereby incorporated in full text:

OTHER SOLICITATION PROVISIONS IN FULL TEXT

M001 SOURCE SELECTION (MAR 2004) (TAILORED)

1.1 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

This acquisition will use the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection procedures. All technical subfactors are weighted equally and are evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis. Each Technical Acceptability subfactor will receive an acceptable or unacceptable, using the ratings and descriptions outlined in Section M of the solicitation. The Government will award Offerors who present technically acceptable offers, conforming to the solicitation, with the lowest Total Evaluated Price (TEP). The solicitation requirements include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation. Technical tradeoffs will not be made and no credit will be given for exceeding the Acceptable rating.

1.2 AWARD WITHOUT DISCUSSIONS

The Government intends to make award without discussions. Therefore, each initial offer should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Source Selection Authority (SSA) determines discussions to be necessary. For the purposes of making the award decision without discussions, all initial proposals that are rated technically Unacceptable on any subfactor will be deemed unawardable.

1.3 NUMBER OF CONTRACTS TO BE AWARDED

The Government seeks to award 10 contracts under this 100% competitive SB set-aside, GEITA11 acquisition. The Government reserves the right to award more or fewer if the SSA determines it is in the Government's best interest. In order to conduct an efficient competition in accordance with FAR 15.306(c)(2), the GEITA solicitation will contain a multi-step process.

M002 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY AND FACTORS

2.0 (a) EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

Proposals will be evaluated using a two step methodology as follows:

Step 1: Initial Assessment. The Government will perform an initial assessment of the initially proposed overall Total Evaluated Price of the offers to screen them for accuracy and completeness. The government may make corrections to obvious mathematical errors, rounding errors or other minor adjustments for the purpose of initial screening. The offers will be ranked from the lowest overall price to the highest. The lowest 18 (minimum) offers will be selected for further evaluation in Step 2. If fewer than 18 initial offers are received, Step 1 will not be performed and all of the offers will be evaluated in Step 2.

Step 2

Technical Evaluation. The Government will evaluate the proposals selected in Step 1 above for technical acceptability, assigning ratings as described in Section M, paragraph 2.1. If any of the proposals receives a technical “Unacceptable” rating on any subfactor, that Offeror’s proposal will be ineligible for contract award.

Cost/Price. The Government will conduct a price analysis and a cost realism evaluation on all proposals selected in Step 1 in accordance with Section M, paragraph, 2.2.

2.0 (b) EVALUATION FACTORS Factor 1 – Technical Acceptability Factor 2 – Cost/Price (Pricing Model)

2.1 Factor 1: TECHNICAL ACCEPTABILITY

Subfactor 1.1 Workforce Management Approach

All technical subfactors are weighted equally and are evaluated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis. Each Technical Acceptability subfactor will receive one of the ratings described below. The following technical acceptability rating definitions will be used in the assessment of Technical Acceptability:

Any subfactor that is rated Unacceptable will result in the overall technical factor being determined Unacceptable.

2.1.1 Subfactor 1.1 – Workforce Management Approach

The Offeror shall present a sound and comprehensive approach to provide, manage, and retain the appropriate qualified workforce to successfully and effectively achieve the requirements of the PWS worldwide, on schedule and within budget in accordance with all requirements specified in Section L, Paragraph 4.4 of the solicitation. This subfactor is met when:

1. The Offeror’s corporate structure for business operations demonstrates direct relationships between the senior leadership and management personnel assigned to this contract for efficient operations. The Offeror’s approach describes all valid external corporate commitments between all parties, if applicable, that details business agreements such as LOIs/TAs and affirms the Prime contractor’s responsibly for all aspects of the Team’s performance. The corporate structure describes the area(s) of expertise and percentage of work to be performed by the prime and all teaming members for this requirement and an effective method for assigned A&AS personnel to reach back to corporate Prime and Team Member knowledge bases to access additional expertise. The work force management approach specifies how the Offeror intends to provide simultaneous management of multiple task orders representing the full scope, magnitude, and complexity of services specified in the PWS worldwide.

1. The Offeror submits a resume for the Program Manager responsible for performance of contract operations as listed in Attachment L-7 entitled “Personnel Qualifications and Experience” and identifies the roles and responsibilities (not resumes) of other management positions as needed including project manager(s) and/or any other management personnel involved in day-to-day contract operations that are responsible for performance of task orders.

1. The Offeror’s approach demonstrates sound and comprehensive planning, resourcing, processes to recruit, retain, train and manage qualified personnel at the proposed labor rates to accomplish the mission and types of tasks expected to be performed per the PWS. The offeror’s pricing must support the planning and capability to provide adequate resources to perform the contract and task orders. The Offeror’s approach includes the process the Offeror uses to validate credentials of potential candidates to ensure they possess appropriate levels of education, experience, and expertise; and ensuring individuals receive proper training to perform their work. The Offeror’s methodology describes how the Offeror’s approach will ensure task order personnel qualifications and licensure/certifications/credentials are maintained without additional cost or intervention from the Government, including currency of and renewal before expiration during the term of the contract performance to avoid potential impacts to schedule or performance. The Offeror’s approach describes the process to be used to ensure positions are filled within 15 calendar days of the negotiated start date of task orders. The Offeror’s approach describes an efficient and effective process to accurately complete required government security clearances before A&AS personnel start date.

1. The Offeror’s approach demonstrates how the Offeror will maximize continuity and minimizes disruption and how it will mitigate risks associated with changes in key and other management personnel should a change in personnel occur. The approach includes the process to ensure continuation of services during personnel absences due to sickness, leave, and voluntary or involuntary termination from employment such that impact to the Government is minimal and position vacancies do not exceed 30 calendar days. The approach describes the process to provide a qualified, stable workforce with minimal turnover of personnel including a total compensation plan in accordance with FAR provision 52.222-46 (Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees).

2.1.2 Subfactor 1.2 Corporate Experience

The Offeror must provide examples of corporate experience within three years prior to issuance date of the solicitation. The Government will not consider nor evaluate corporate experience on an Offeror submission that concluded more than three years from the issuance date of the solicitation. This subfactor is met when the Offeror:

1. Adequately demonstrates execution of geographically dispersed work of all the types of tasks specified in the PWS: Experience must be commensurate with the magnitude, scope and technical complexity of the GEITA11 requirements. Corporate experience must represent in-depth appropriate and relevant experience representing the entire scope of tasks in accordance with the PWS and be presented in accordance with all of the instructions found in Section L, Attachment L-1 and L-2a of the solicitation.

1. Adequately demonstrates execution of geographically dispersed simultaneously executed task orders representing appropriate and relevant experience covering the entire scope of tasks in the PWS and in accordance with instructions listed at Section L, Attachment L-3 of the solicitation. The table must demonstrate experience delivering A&AS type services to the Government or industry with work efforts collectively showing geographic dispersion, covering the entire scope of PWS tasks, and including work performed individually by members of the Team.

2.1.3 Subfactor 1.3 – Quality Approach

This subfactor is met when the Offeror’s Quality Control (QC) plan adequately demonstrates a sound, comprehensive, effective, and efficient approach to managing QC for the entire Team, including proactively identifying and mitigating cost, schedule or quality issues while ensuring work products are scientifically and technically sound. The QC plan must also describe a quality approach that at a minimum ensures the quality of services and deliverables do not degrade over time. The plan shall include examples of successful QC programs and address the elements required per Section L, paragraph 4.6 of the solicitation.

2.2 Factor 2 – Cost/Price

The Government will use a Pricing Model (Attachment L-6) to formulate TEPs for all Offerors for comparison purposes per FAR 15.404-1(b)(2)(i). The TEP will be the only discriminator among Offerors for the cost/price factor. Price will be evaluated for price reasonableness and unbalanced pricing. Cost will be evaluated for realism. The Offeror’s cost/price proposal will be evaluated based upon the TEP, calculated as stated in paragraph 2.2(a) below.

(a) Price Reasonableness - 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). Price reasonableness will be determined based on the comparison of each Offeror’s TEP to the average TEP from all technically acceptable proposals.

(b) Cost Realism. The Government will conduct an additional analysis of the cost elements as identified in Section L, paragraph 5.4.4 to determine if the costs are realistic. The Government will evaluate proposed fully-burdened labor rates to determine whether the labor rates reflect a clear understanding of the technical requirements and established labor categories. Comparison of proposed costs in response to the solicitation is the preferred and intended cost analysis technique. Other techniques and procedures, if deemed necessary, may be used to ensure a fair and reasonable price and realistic costs, to include, but not limited to, the following: comparison of previously proposed costs/prices and previous Government and commercial contract costs/prices with current proposed costs/prices for the same or similar service/items; comparison with competitive market costs/prices of similar indexes; GSA schedule(s) or Department of Labor wage/salary indexes; or comparison of proposed costs/prices with an independent government estimate.

(c) Unbalanced Pricing: Offerors are cautioned against submitting an unbalanced offer. The Government will analyze offers to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to cost/price. An example of an unbalanced offer would be proposed labor rates that are significantly less than or significantly overstated in relation to the proposed rates or other labor categories (either of the offeror’s proposal or the same labor categories as proposed by other offerors). The Government may also consider an offer unbalanced if there is a significant difference between proposed labor rates in the same labor category between option periods or the proposed prices from year to year or above what would be considered a reasonable adjustment for inflation. Offeror’s proposals that are determined unbalanced may be rejected.

(1) Pricing Model - Proposed Home Office and Field fully-burdened Firm Fixed Price (FFP) labor rates shall be inserted into the pricing model by the Offeror, which when applied to the predetermined labor hours, will calculate a total price for each labor category. An Offeror’s price for the pricing model will be calculated by multiplying the proposed FFP fully-burdened hourly rates against the respective labor hours associated with each labor category and then adding the applicable subcontracts and other direct costs with applicable indirects applied for all contract years. All individual labor category costs and indirect costs will then be totaled to arrive at the Offeror’s total evaluated price for the pricing model. The labor category rates and indirect rates (associated with subcontracts and ODCs) to be inserted into the pricing model will be the simple average of the rates proposed for each of the Government’s seven fiscal years. Since Home Office and Field labor rates are being proposed, the pricing model has been designed to reflect an average labor rate (Home Office/Field) for computing the total price for the pricing model.

(i) Home Office and Field fully burdened FFP labor rates for each Offeror and Team Member as proposed in the Rate Tables in accordance with Section L, Paragraph 5.4.1 will be incorporated into the basic contract and shall be the maximum labor rates to be used at the task order level for both competitive and single source requirements.

(ii) The Government has developed a pricing model that is representative of the types of task orders that may be issued under this basic contract. The pricing model was developed based upon past experience. The model includes labor categories, associated labor hours, subcontract costs, and other direct costs, as predetermined by the Contracting Officer.

(iii) If prime and team members propose labor rates for the same labor category on the rate tables, prime and team member rates will be averaged to calculate one labor rate for the pricing model.

(b) The TEP will be the only discriminator among Offerors for the cost/price factor.

2.2.1 ACCOUNTING SYSTEM

The Offeror shall have an accounting system that has been audited and determined adequate for determining costs applicable to this contract in accordance FAR 16.301-3(a)(1) to be eligible for contract award. Evidence provided by the Offeror of an adequate accounting system for accumulating and reporting incurred costs will be verified by contacting the cognizant Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) office. If the Offeror’s accounting system has not been previously audited to determine adequacy, an audit by DCAA will be requested. If the Offeror’s accounting system is deemed unacceptable by DCAA, the matter will be referred to the Small Business Administration (SBA) for final certificate of competency resolution.

2.2.2 FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY

Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) will be requested to perform a Financial Capability Risk Assessment for the Prime and all team members that are anticipated to perform 20 percent or more of the proposed effort. The Government will use the results of the Financial Capability Risk Assessment to determine financial responsibility. If the Financial Capability Risk Assessment is “unacceptable” the SBA will make a determination of competency and issue a certificate of competency if determined competent. Failure to meet financial responsibility requirements will render the offeror’s proposal not awardable.

M004 SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS (OCT 2002)

(a) Teams are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, in addition to those identified as factors/subfactors to eligible for award. (b) Failure to comply with all terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the proposal being rendered unawardable. (c) Any exceptions to the solicitation’s terms and conditions shall be fully explained and justified.

SECTION M – FA8903-12-R-8000

SECTION M – FA8903-12-R-8000