20090720 Section M GBPS.docx

Solicitation No. H92222-09-R-0034 Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

52.217-5 52.222-24 Evaluation Of Options Pre-award On-Site Equal Opportunity Compliance Evaluation

JUL 1990

FEB 1999

1.0 Introduction: This section outlines the criteria the Government will use in evaluating the offeror’s capabilities and proposals for the Global Battlestaff and Program Support contract. The Government will compare each offeror’s capabilities and proposal elements against the predetermined evaluation criteria related to the Government’s requirement defined herein.

2.0 General Basis for Award: This is a competitive, best value, source selection that will be conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15.3 and Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Part 215.3. To arrive at a source selection decision, the Source Selection Authority (SSA) will perform an integrated assessment using the evaluation factors identified below. This may result in awards being made to higher rated, potentially higher priced offerors where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the SSA reasonably determines that the program management and/or superior past performance, of the potentially higher priced offerors provides the Government the least amount of risk and the highest confidence for program success.

3.0 Evaluation: The Government will evaluate all proposals received against program management, past performance, and cost factors. A color code rating technique will be used to evaluate the program management and past performance proposals. The cost proposal will not be given a color rating. The Program Management and Past Performance Factors will be afforded primary emphasis in the evaluation and are considered equal in importance. When combined, these factors and an associated risk evaluation are more important than Cost. The subfactors within each factor are listed in descending order of importance

Phase I Evaluation

FACTOR 1: Program Management Volume I

Subfactor 1: Business Management/Control Processes/Transition Plan Subfactor 2: Workforce-Skilled personnel including Security Clearances Subfactor 3: Small Business Subcontracting Plan and Small Business Participation Targets/Teaming Arrangements/OCI

FACTOR 2: Past Performance Volume II

FACTOR 3: Cost and Contract Forms Volume III

3.1 FACTOR 1: Program Management: Under the Program Management Factor, the Government will evaluate the offeror’s overall approach to effectively manage and provide the services delineated in the PWS. Evaluation of this factor shall focus on the strengths and inadequacies of the offeror’s proposal and will be evaluated using the ratings listed in Chart 1. The Government will favorably consider proposed innovations and efficiencies that will enhance contract performance and are a benefit to the Government. The Government WILL NOT roll up subfactor ratings into an overall rating for this factor. Note that if an offeror’s proposal demonstrates a material failure to meet a Government requirement; this is a deficiency in the offeror’s proposal. See also paragraph 5.

3.2 FACTOR 2: Past Performance: The Past Performance evaluation considers the offeror’s demonstrated record of performance in providing services and products that meet users’ needs. Past Performance evaluation shall focus on the recency and relevancy regarding how well the Contractor performed or is performing the same or similar type of work under other Government contracts. The recency and relevancy of the contractors performance information is critical in determining the rating received as listed in Chart 1. Recent or current performance will have greater impact in the performance evaluation than less recent performance. In determining relevancy, consideration will be given, but not limited to, such things as project similarity (major PWS functional areas, diversity of required expertise, and scope magnitude), project complexity, business management and control processes in relation to the Factor 1 subfactors, contract type, and subcontractor interaction and meeting of other contract established goals. See also paragraph 6.

CHART 1: Color Ratings

3.3 FACTOR 3 - Cost: Although the Factor 3 – Cost - is the least important, it will contribute substantially to the source selection decision. Cost will be evaluated in terms of reasonableness and realism and meeting the requirements for accounting systems in accordance with section 7 below.

3.4 RISK EVALUATION: Risk Evaluation focuses on the risks associated with an offeror’s proposed approach and the Government’s confidence level that the proposed approach can be achieved as described. “Success” in this case means that the Government perceived contractor performance can be achieved satisfactorily but not flawlessly or in a superlative manner as proposed. “Failure” means that the Government perceived that the contractor’s performance can not be achieved satisfactorily or in accordance with the customer’s requirements, not that the contractor failed completely or defaulted as proposed.

The Government’s assessment of risk based on evaluating the offeror’s chance for success based on their proposed program management approach and past performance for recent and relevant experience in meeting the PWS requirements. The Government’s assessment is based on whether the information provided demonstrates that the offerors performance will most likely result in success or failure. Assessment of risk will be accomplished at the subfactor level for Factor 1 but will not be rolled up to the Factor level for Factor 1. Assessment of risk will be accomplished at the factor level for Factor 2.

Proposal risk will be evaluated using the following ratings:

4.0 Exchanges Prior to Competitive Range. The Government may have to conduct clarifications or communications IAW FAR 15.306 prior to the establishment of the competitive range and entering into Phase II. If this becomes necessary the government will issue Evaluation Notices (ENs). "Evaluation notices (ENs)" are written exchanges with offerors for purposes of clarifications, communications, or discussions.

4.1 Competitive Range: In accordance with FAR 15.306(c)(1), the contracting officer may establish a competitive range comprised of the highest rated proposals based on the ratings of each proposal against all of the evaluation criteria including the evaluation of risk. The Government intends to award a minimum of 3 and maximum of 4 prime awards as a result of this solicitation; however, it reserves the right to award none to 5 based upon the results of the proposal evaluations. The Government reserves the right for efficiency purposes to only include the most highly rated proposals into the competitive range, Phase II, IAW 52.215-1. If the SSA determines that an offeror’s proposal should no longer be included in the competitive range, the proposal will be eliminated from consideration for award and written notice of the decision will be provided to the unsuccessful offeror in accordance with FAR 15.503 and will not move on to the Phase II evaluation portion.

4.1.1 It is the Government’s intent to establish a Competitive Range (based upon evaluation results of Volumes I-III) and then issue requests for proposals using statements of objectives (SOOs) and Instructions to Offerors (ITOs) at the task order level (approximately 3-4 separate task orders) to those offerors remaining in the competitive range as outlined in Section L, Phase II. The offerors’ task order proposals will be submitted per Section H.22 of this RFP and will be evaluated per the procedures outlined in Section H.22 of this RFP. Results of this evaluation will consist of either not being awarded a prime contract or task order or being awarded a prime contract and one or more task orders. The ratings determined in Phase I are solely to determine the competitive range. The Phase I ratings will have no bearing on the Phase II process.

4.2 Discussions: To maximize the Government’s ability to obtain the best value, based on the requirement and the evaluation factors set forth in this RFP, it may be necessary to conduct discussions after the determination of the competitive range (Phase II). If there are weaknesses, deficiencies, uncertainties, or other issues which must be addressed before award, they will be discussed with only those offerors determined to be in the competitive range. Discussions may be conducted either orally or in writing. The scope and extent of the discussions are a matter of contracting officer judgment. Offerors should present their very best proposal as their initial proposal. Offerors are strongly advised to thoroughly examine their proposals for accuracy, full documentation, clear explanations and compliance with all requirements of the RFP prior to submission to the contracting officer.

4.3 Final Proposal Revisions: If discussions are conducted, final proposal revisions will be required in determining the award of the contract (s) resulting from this RFP. However, the Government reserves the right to award a contract(s) without discussions or opportunity for proposal revisions, in which case, final proposal revisions will not be required. Offerors are advised that unsupported final proposal revisions may be penalized in the overall proposal evaluation, and an otherwise acceptable proposal could be placed in jeopardy.

5.0 FACTOR 1 Program Management:

5.1 Subfactor 1: Business Management/Control Processes/Transition Plan: Under this subfactor, the Government will evaluate the offeror’s approach to providing sound business management practices, processes, and expertise to manage the GBPS contract with emphasis on the following areas:

A. Soundness of approach and evidence that demonstrates ability and key management personnel expertise to cover requirements described in the PWS major functional areas in an effective manner B. Ability and thorough approach to manage a diverse workforce located in both contractor and Government facilities in geographically separated locations.

C. Demonstrated standard or tailored processes standard or tailored processes to successfully manage multiple task orders and multiple subcontractors, and to work in an integrated team environment D. Effective approach to managing multiple task orders while minimizing layers of unnecessary and ineffective oversight E. Demonstrated ability and plan to execute a smooth and seamless phase-in/transition leading to assumption of full basic contractual responsibility. This described plan shall include management expertise, procedures and policies, risk mitigation techniques, flexibility, resources, and experience which will clearly demonstrate the Offeror’s complete understanding of the requirements and its team’s ability to successfully execute an organized and seamless contract phase-in.

F. Completeness of Phase-in plan which addresses each activity needed to assure timely completion for contract and task order start, full description of the Phase-in Team including functions to be performed or responsibilities assigned, soundness of approach, and evidence for interfacing with the incumbent contractor during the phase-in period. Approach for transitioning current task orders to the new contract over the period of time described in the PWS and assurances that contractor will have personnel in place on day one of the task order G. Description and rationale for the proposed organizational structure including integration of teammates and the plans for each organizational element along with defined responsibilities in support of the requirements in the PWS. Organizational plans must show clear lines of responsibilities and authority for controlling, reporting, and reviewing work. Proposed structure should elaborate on any innovative concepts which streamline decision-making while maintaining accountability.

H. Identity, acceptability, and flexibility of proposed contractor local Tampa facilities and capabilities should most or much of the GBPS work be performed offsite I. Soundness and comprehensive approach to providing possible reach back capability including flexibility in responding to changing needs; including surge/sag capacity and reach back for subject matter experts and key personnel.

J. Thoroughness and acceptability of any innovative concepts presented to assist the Government in awarding and administering task orders with performance based concepts and measureable deliverables.

K. Extent and thoroughness of the job qualifications for the proposed top key management positions with acceptable two page resumes for each position which clearly identifies the following areas of information for evaluation completeness and acceptance:

a. Relevant experience as managers of similar contracts.

b. Technical competency

c. Demonstrated customer interface skills and people-oriented styles

d. Appropriate education and training

e. Indication of which key personnel are current employees of the team and their longevity with the company

f. Indication of any key personnel bid on other proposals and/or their degree of availability

g. Indication of commitment to mobilize at contract announcement

5.2 Subfactor 2: Workforce-Skilled personnel including Security Clearances: Under this subfactor, the Government will evaluate the offeror’s ability to provide skilled resources to meet the requirements of the PWS to support the requirements at the task order level. The Government will evaluate the following specific areas:

A. Methodology and soundness of proposed processes to recruit, hire, and retain personnel with the skills and security clearances required to meet the Government’s requirements. This methodology and plan should identify any management challenges anticipated with recruiting, hiring, and retaining this workforce along with approaches to address and overcome these challenges.

B. Demonstrated innovative approaches to staffing, with lessons learned in similar environments. Provide record of performance in recruiting, hiring, and retaining personnel in similar environments to GBPS.

C. Demonstrated ability to access highly specialized skill sets, for long term support and for short periods of time.

D. Approach to provide skilled personnel at off-site locations and geographically separated sites.

E. Experience and demonstrated ability to capitalize on internal and external resources to acquire a breadth and depth of knowledge and experience to provide support for unique requirements not currently outlined in the PWS.

F. Demonstrated and proven security process is in place with a plan, personnel, processes, and infrastructure to protect information in accordance with DoD and Command standards.

5.3 Subfactor 3: Small Business Subcontracting Plan and Small Business Participation Targets and Proposed Teaming Arrangements:

5.3.1 If a subcontracting plan is required by FAR 19.7, the minimum requirement for small business participation is met when the subcontracting plan and proposal demonstrate the following:

A. The offeror demonstrates a corporate commitment between parties in providing subcontracting opportunities for small businesses, small disadvantaged businesses, HUBZone small businesses, women-owned small businesses, veteran-owned small businesses, service disabled veteran-owned small business concerns. The offeror describes the details of the corporate commitment to this proposal including what type of commitment, how binding is commitment, how specific is the commitment to proposed effort, and what types of tasks are included in subcontracting opportunities.

B. The offeror demonstrates, as a minimum, compliance with 30% percentages: Sections H-19, H21 and L.

C. The offeror demonstrates realistic (achievable) targets expressed in percentages of the total contract dollars for each category outlined in Section L.

5.3.2 Proposed Teaming Arrangements:

A. The proposal should address how the overall team will be managed including the interface with the subcontractors. Proposal should outline the exercise and control of cost, schedule, and performance and the reporting and communications within the integrated team. Any differences in how the various team members should be explained along with rationale. The teaming arrangement details are addressed in the subcontracting plan.

B. Offerors shall clearly demonstrate how the overall team proposed will be able to provide all expertise required in the various functional areas at the task order levels as outlined in Section L, paragraph 3.3.2.

C. The proposal should further address the offeror’s process on being able to acquire additional team members as required over the period of performance.

5.3.3 Organizational Conflict of Interest. The proposal clearly demonstrates a solid OCI plan addressing all areas in Section L and compliance with Section H.15 OCI clause. The proposed plan reduces possible OCI risk significantly for the performance of this effort. The evaluation will consider the extent to which current and potential OCIs affect the performance of the GBPS contract, the administrative burden and costs related to identifying and avoiding or mitigating suction OCIs, and the potential for such OCIs to affect the performance of and administrative burdens on other SOCOM contracts.

6.0 FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE. Under the Past Performance factor, the offeror will be evaluated on how it actually performed other relevant contracts successfully. The currency and relevance of the information provided, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in the offerors performance under other contracts (including Federal, State, and local Government) will be evaluated to ensure successful Program Management as described in FACTOR 1 subfactors and the PWS. The Government will evaluate the offeror's demonstrated record (performance evaluations) of contract compliance in providing services that meet user's needs including cost. The Government’s definition of recent refers to contracts performed during the past three (3) years from the date of the issuance of this solicitation. The Performance Evaluation will be accomplished by reviewing aspects of an offeror's recent and relevant (present and past) performance, focusing on and targeting performance which is relevant to Program Management subfactors, PWS major functional areas, and the Cost factor. The Government will evaluate the offeror's relevant and recent performance, including joint ventures, major subcontractors when evaluating past performance. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being performed by the offeror or major subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated in order to perform a comparative assessment of past performance data to determine future performance of the requirements in this PWS. For prime contractors, higher relevancy will be assessed for contracts that are most similar to the effort (i.e. diversity of required expertise, and scope magnitude, project complexity, business management and control processes in relation to the Factor 1 subfactors, contract type, actual special operations support or other similar military operations support, same major functional areas as GBPS PWS, number of employees required, etc.). For proposed major subcontractors, higher relevancy will be assessed for contracts that are most similar to the portions of this effort for which that major subcontractor is being proposed, and may contribute to an overall higher relevancy score for the offeror. The Government is not bound by the offeror's opinion of relevancy. The following relevancy definitions apply:

The Government source selection evaluation board will conduct an in-depth review and evaluation of all performance data obtained to determine how closely the work performed under those efforts relates to the current requirement. The performance evaluation will be based on the data gathered by both interviews with those references provided from the offerors proposal information sheets, submitted SF 294/295s, and CPAR reports as available through the Past Performance Retrieval System (PPIRS). The government is not limited to these resources.

When relevant performance record indicates performance problems, the Government will consider the number and severity of the problems and the appropriateness and effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised). The Government may review more recent contracts or performance evaluations to ensure corrective actions have been implemented and to evaluate their effectiveness.

As a result of the analysis of past performance on other contracts, each offeror will receive a color rating for this Factor as outlined in Section 3.2. In addition, the color rating will have an associated risk rating applied as described in Section 3.4.

Offerors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive a "Neutral” rating for the Past Performance factor. However, a rating other than neutral may be assessed if the offeror proposes management personnel who have a record of performance on relevant contracts, or if a proposed subcontractor or partner who will be performing a significant portion of the work has a performance history on relevant contracts. Though a negative past performance rating will not be assessed for neutral past performance, the associated risk of this performance record will be assessed accordingly.

Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation criterion or any unfavorable comments received from sources. The offeror will be notified of any adverse past performance information and given the opportunity to respond if they have not already been given the opportunity to do so.

7.0 FACTOR 3 –COST. The Government will evaluate the offerors’ proposals to assess the realism and reasonableness of the proposals to determine the best value offeror as it pertains to Phase I. Cost will not receive a color rating. In addition, the offeror must indicate that it is eligible for a government contract based on the offeror’s responses to the representations, certifications, all contract forms, and other statements required by the RFP.

7.1 The offeror's cost proposal will not be rated or scored; but will be evaluated for reasonableness and realism. The offeror's cost proposal will be evaluated, using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404, in order to determine if it is reasonable and realistic. The offeror's proposed indirect rates and factors for all years and the methodology used for computing those rates and factors will be evaluated for mathematical accuracy and to determine realism. The proposed escalation rate will be evaluated to determine if it is realistic (too high/low) and will be adjusted accordingly. This will include an evaluation of the proposed indirect rates as proposed in formats shown in Section L using multiple analysis techniques. To facilitate the evaluation of proposal information requested in Section L of this solicitation, information may be obtained from other sources including, but not limited to, Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA), and Data Resources Indices (DRI).

7.2 The Government will evaluate the offerors’ ability to accurately forecast indirect cost.

If the Government determines substantial adjustments to the Offerors indirect rates are needed due to realism analysis, for example very low fringe benefits, unallowable cost, under estimated business base, etc., it may be viewed as evidence of failure to comprehend the complexity and the ability to perform proper cost accounting and may justify rejection of the proposal.

7.3 Accounting/Cost Accounting/Purchasing System:

7.3.1 Evidence provided by the offeror of an adequate accounting system for accumulating and reporting incurred costs will be verified by contacting the cognizant DCAA office. The offeror must have an adequate accounting system as determined by DCAA or other Federal Audit Agency to be considered for award.

7.3.2 If prime is required to comply with Cost Accounting Standards, the Government will evaluate if Cost Disclosure Statement (CDS) has been submitted and approved, or whether the CDS submitted with the proposal is adequate for DCAA/DCMA further review and approval. Further, an evaluation of whether there are inconsistencies with the proposed approach and the approved/submitted CDS.

7.3.3 The Government will evaluate whether DCMA review of the purchasing system has been completed along with the results for any inconsistencies/problems with the prime’s purchasing system.

7.4 Total compensation plan for professional employees: The Government will evaluate the plan to assure that it reflects a sound management approach and understanding of the contract requirements. This evaluation will include an assessment of the offeror’s ability to provide uninterrupted high-quality work. The professional compensation proposed will be considered in terms of its impact upon recruiting and retention, its realism, and its consistency with a total plan for compensation.

7.4.1 The Government is concerned with the quality and stability of the work force to be employed on this contract. Professional compensation that is unrealistically low or not in reasonable relationship to the various job categories, since it may impair the Contractor’s ability to attract and retain competent professional service employees, may be viewed as evidence of failure to comprehend the complexity of the contract requirements. Failure to comply with these provisions may constitute sufficient cause to justify rejection of a proposal.

7.5 The Government will evaluate the maximum fixed fee submitted by the Offeror. The maximum fee shall be used in all CPFF summations. This maximum fee will become the maximum fee allowable during the performance of this contract for all CPFF task orders. The Government will also evaluate pass through and any fees applied to major subcontractors work.

7.6 The Government will evaluate commitments by both the prime and major subcontractors that they will comply with EO 13495 and offer employment or right of first refusal to those ALMBOS employees whose employment may be terminated as a result of award to a contractor other than the incumbent contractor.

8.0 PROPOSAL RISK. This factor identifies and evaluates the risks of the offeror’s proposed approach for each of the Program Management subfactors and past performance in accordance with the definitions in Section M, 3.4. The assessment includes a risk assessment relating to any perceived potential for disruption of mission, potential increased cost, degradation of performance and the need for increased Government oversight as well as the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. The risk will be assessed at the subfactor level for each subfactor in Factors 1 and 2 (the same subfactors will be used in each evaluation factor).

9.0. LEVEL OF CONFIDENCE. The Government will use our assessments of FACTORS 1, 2, and 3 (and all subfactors) – experience, past performance and risk associated with each – to develop a level of confidence assessment rating for Phase I. The rating will reflect our subjective assessment of the likelihood that the offeror will keep the promises outlined in its proposal.

Phase II- Task order Competition after determination of Competitive Range

In accordance with Section L, the Government will evaluate the task order proposals in accordance with Section H.22. In addition, the Government will evaluate the information the offerors provided during any oral interviews that may be directed of the task orders IAW Task Order RFP Instruction to Offerors (ITO)s.

Results of the Phase II evaluation will consist of either not being awarded a prime contract and no task orders or being awarded a prime contract and one or more task orders.

The above determination will be based upon the results of the task order proposals and the evaluations thereof. If an offeror presented an acceptable task order proposal that demonstrated their capability to be competitive for future task orders yet did not win any of the specific task orders proposed in Phase II because the offer was not determined the best value IAW Section H.22, the Government may still award that offeror a prime contract.

If an offerors’ proposal was evaluated and the Government determined they did not demonstrate a capability to be competitive for future task orders, the offeror will not receive a prime contract.