Attachment_J-9_Section_M_22_Aug.docx

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

SECTION M FULL TEXT

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

M.1 Best Value Introduction Introduction: This section outlines the criteria the Government will use in evaluating the Offeror’s capabilities and proposal for the Intel Support Services - Joint 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. 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.

M.1.1 Evaluation Ratings Assignment The Government will evaluate all proposals received against General and Administrative Qualifying Criteria, Management Plan/Key Personnel, Transition Plan, Contract Price, and Past Performance. All General and Administrative Qualifying Criteria are evaluated on a pass or fail basis. A color rating technique will be used to evaluate the Management Plan/Key Personnel and Transition Plan Capabilities. Also, a Low/Medium/High risk rating will be used to evaluate the Management Plan/Key Personnel and Transition Plan Areas. Past Performance will receive an overall confidence level rating. The Price Area will not be given a color rating or scored.

M.1.2 Area Evaluation Matrix

M.1.3 Evaluation Scales

M.1.3.1 Areas 2 and 3 Evaluation Scale The Management Plan/Key Personnel and Transition Plan Capability Areas will be evaluated based on the following rating scale:

Table 1. Technical Ratings

approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains at least one strength and no deficiencies.

Deficiencies and weaknesses, referred to in above descriptions ratings, are defined as set forth in FAR 15.001.

Technical Risk Rating. Assessment of technical risk, which is manifested by the identification of weakness(es), considers potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. Technical risk shall be rated using the ratings listed below.

Table 2. Technical Risk Ratings

degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

M.1.3.2 Area 5 Evaluation Scale

The Government will evaluate the past performance of the efforts that meet the recency and relevancy criteria as described in the relevancy table below in order to determine the Government’s overall level of confidence in the offeror’s ability to successfully perform the required effort.

The Government will review all offeror’s proposed back up data and Questionnaire’s, and ensure they meet the required recency timeframe (3 yrs). Those efforts that do not meet the recency requirements or determined to be not relevant will not be evaluated further. The relevancy definitions that will be utilized by the Government are as follows:

Table 3. Past Performance Relevancy

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s past performance (that meet the recency and relevancy criteria in the table above) in order to determine the Government’s overall level of confidence in the Offeror’s ability to successfully perform the required effort. The Confidence Ratings with definitions that will be utilized are contained below:

Table 4. Past Performance Confidence Assessments

M.1.4 Relative Order of Importance IAW FAR 15.304(d) the relative order of importance of evaluation areas are as follows:

If a proposal receives a rating of “Pass” in Area 1; Tradeoffs will be accomplished between non-price Areas and Price.

Factors are listed in descending order of importance.

1. The non-price criteria Area 2 and the Price Area 4 are equal in importance.

2. Area 3

3. Area 5

All evaluation Areas other than price, when combined, are significantly more important than Price. It should be noted that as proposals approach equality across the non-price Areas; the Price area plays a more important role in the Best Value Award Decision.

M.1.5 Basis for Award To arrive at a source selection decision, the Source Selection Authority (SSA) will perform an integrated assessment using the evaluation factors described here within Section M. IAW FAR 15.101-1, this may result in award being made to the higher rated, potentially higher priced Offeror (s).

M.1.6 Pass/Fail Evaluation (Area 1) If an Offeror fails any criteria of the Area 1 General and Administrative Qualifying Criteria evaluation the remaining areas of the proposal will not be further evaluated and the Offeror is removed from the competition (i.e. ineligible for award).

M.1.7 Number of Contractors to be Selected The Government anticipates selecting one contractor for the Intel Support Services - Joint Contract. The Government reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to award no, one, or multiple contracts, depending on the quality of the proposals, the availability of funding, program risks, the continued existence of the requirement, and other Government needs.

M.1.8 Rejection of Unrealistic Offers The Government may reject any proposal that is assessed to be unrealistic in terms of program commitments, including contract terms and conditions, or unrealistically high or low in price when compared to Government estimates, such that the proposal is deemed to reflect lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program.

M.1.9 Proposal Evaluation Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as areas or factors to be eligible for award. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the Offeror being removed from consideration for award. Any exceptions to the solicitation's terms and conditions must be fully explained and justified.

M.1.10 Competitive Range Determination In accordance with FAR 15.306(c), the Government intends to make a competitive range determination. If made, the determination will be based on an initial evaluation of the General and Administrative Qualifying Criteria (Area 1), Management Plan/Key Personnel (Area 2), Transition Plan (Area 3), Price (Area 4), and Past Performance (Area 5). The competitive range will include only those proposals most highly rated after initial evaluation and may further be limited for efficiency purposes, if it is deemed to be in the Government’s best interest. The Government will base the initial evaluation of proposals and the initial determination of the competitive range upon a review of the submitted proposals, and consider any information exchanged during communications as defined in FAR 15.306. The Government will discontinue evaluation of any proposal which is not considered to be in the competitive range after initial evaluations. The Contracting Officer will promptly notify Offerors of any decision to exclude them from the competitive range, whereupon they may request and receive a debriefing in accordance with FAR 15.505.

M.1.11 Discussions The Government may hold written or oral discussions with all Offerors within the competitive range. The intent of these discussions is to obtain the best value based upon the requirements and evaluation factors set forth in Section M. The scope and extent of discussions are at the discretion of the Contracting Officer, and the Contracting Officer will tailor discussions to each Offeror’s proposal. During these discussions, the Government will resolve all material issues to select the best offer for award. The Government may remove an Offeror from the competitive range at any point during discussions, whether or not all material aspects of the proposal have been discussed, if the Offeror is no longer considered to be one of the most highly rated. Responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the best value decision. When the Government concludes discussions, it will give all Offerors within the competitive range the opportunity to submit a final revised proposal by the date and time identified by the Contracting Officer.

M.1.12 Final Proposal Revisions If held, and after discussions are conducted (see M.1.11. above), Final Proposal Revisions (FPR) will be required in determining the award of the contract resulting from this RFP. Offerors are advised that unsupported FPR responses may lower the overall proposal evaluation.

M.1.13 Award without Discussions The Government reserves the right in its sole discretion to award without discussions if the evaluation shows that it is in the Government’s best interest. If an award without discussions decision is made by the SSA a competitive range will not be established, discussions will not be conducted, nor will FPRs be requested. For this reason it is highly encouraged that an Offeror submit its best offer initially to the Government in response to the proposal (vice waiting for FPRs)

M.1.14 Offer Acceptance A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful Offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer's specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received from the Offeror before award.

M.1.15 Disqualification The term disqualification as used in this solicitation means that the Offeror is no longer considered for award. If an Offeror is disqualified in accordance with the criteria spelled out in this solicitation, their proposal will not be evaluated and they are ineligible for contract award.

M.2 Area 1: General and Administrative Qualifying Criteria (Volume 1) Information submitted for the qualifying criteria IAW Section L.2 will be evaluated to determine if the proposal meets the definition below in order to “pass.” If the Offeror fails any of the qualifying criteria, they will “fail” to qualify and in accordance with M.1.6 be removed from the competition. The Offerors will be assessed as passed if the minimum requirements definitions below have been met.

M.2.1 Facility Clearance.

The Prime Offeror must have a Top Secret Facility Clearance and Secret Level Safeguarding as accredited by the Industrial Security Facilities Database (ISFD) at the time of proposal submittal, and shall meet all requirements of the Contract Security Classification Specification (DD Form 254), showing proof of clearance, storage, etc. The Secret Safeguarding requirement may be fulfilled by a teaming partner at this time, however, the Prime would be required to obtain Secret Safeguarding within the first year after contract award.

M.3 Area 2: Management Plan/Key Personnel (Volume 2)

Under this Area the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s overall approach to manage and organize support to execute the SOW for this contract. This includes evaluating the Offeror’s approach to maintaining personnel, material, and travel requirements.

1. A plan that utilizes fewer layers of Contractor to Government communication channels to transmit direction for the overall contract requirement will receive a more favorable evaluation than a plan with multiple layers.

1. A plan that demonstrates extensive subcontractor management experience and utilizes fewer subcontractors to complete this effort will be more favorably evaluated.

1. The extent to which the Offeror has actual verifiable experience, infrastructure, and established procedures to insert, withdraw and support/manage OCONUS deployed employees in a hostile fire area will receive a more favorable evaluation.

1. The qualifications and experience of Key Personnel. The standard is met when the Offeror provides Key Personnel that meet the threshold requirements identified in Section L.3.1.

1. The capability of the Offeror’s proposed procedures to minimize impact on continuity of operations due to turnover (ie. termination, sickness, retirement, etc.) will receive a more favorable evaluation.

1. The Offeror’s management plan must describe and illustrate its current process to recruit, hire, and train new personnel in order to maximize manning levels. A plan that demonstrates a higher confidence of achieving this goal will receive a more favorable evaluation.

M.4 Area 3: Transition Plan (Volume 3)

Under this Area the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to providing sound business practice, processes, expertise in the management approach to transition personnel to a new contract and determine whether the proposal meets, or does not meet the requirements. This plan will become part of any resultant contract award as an attachment.

1. The extent to which the Offeror’s plan provides a detailed approach, that accomplishes a timely transition by describing its plan to manage, deploy, and transition the requirement from the incumbent vendor to the successful Offeror. This plan shall include the logistics of moving the Offeror’s personnel into hostile fire zones, and assuming control of the Government’s requirement for real time intel support to Forward Deployed USSOCOM elements.

1. The Offeror shall address its capability to execute a smooth and seamless phase-in/transition leading to assumption of full contractual responsibility. Offerors who exhibit a more timely transition schedule by labor category and location to meet the full 243 FTE requirement will receive a more favorable evaluation.

1. The Offeror’s plan to accomplish succession from legacy Contractor performance (including plans, if any, to assimilate the incumbent’s workforce) to Offeror performance will be evaluated for feasibility and potential impact on mission continuity. A transition plan that is based upon previous corporate experience will potentially obtain a more favorable evaluation than a transition plan submitted by an Offeror with no previous corporate experience with succession.

M.5 Area 4: Price Evaluation (Volume 4):

Price will be evaluated in order to determine that it is fair and reasonable IAW FAR 15.404 to include ensuring the price is not unrealistically low or unreasonably high without valid explanation. Price proposal evaluations will consider the five year requirement to form an overall Total Evaluated Price (TEP). Price will not receive a color rating or score, but will receive a TEP, which will be used for evaluation purposes only.

M.5.1 Total Evaluated Price: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s total evaluated price and use that as the Area 4 input for the source selection decision. The TEP will be composed of the labor identified in the Classified Statement of Work, multiplied by the Offeror’s daily labor rate pricing to arrive at a total Labor Component (L.5.2). The Government will use a planning figure for training for all vendors (L.5.4). The Government will use a planning figure for travel for all vendors, modified by the Offeror’s specific travel burden (L.5.3) to arrive at the total travel component price. The Government will utilize the ODC inputs (to include DBA Insurance price proposed in L.5.5.1) as the ODC price component (L.5.5). The Government will use a planning figure for Over and above labor for all vendors (L.5.2).

The TEP will be calculated as the sum of:

1. FFP CLINs 0001 and 0002 will be computed by multiplying the proposed daily rates (which is derived by a hourly rate) times the number of days listed in the Price Sheet, Solicitation Attachment J-5 and Statement of Work Attachment J-1. See L.5.2 Labor Component for additional information.

1. Cost only CLIN 0003 Training will be based on the Government Estimates listed in the Price Sheet, Attachment J-5, plus any corresponding indirect rates. See L.5.4 Training Component, and L.5.5.2 Indirect Rates for additional information.

1. Cost only CLIN 0004 Travel will be based on the Government Estimates listed in the Price Sheet, Attachment J-5, plus any corresponding indirect rates. See L.5.3 Travel Component, and L.5.5.2 Indirect Rates for additional information.

1. Cost only CLIN 0005 ODC. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed ODC, plus any applicable indirect rates, for reasonableness. See L.5.5 ODC Component, and L.5.5.2 Indirect Rates for additional information.

1. FFP CLIN 0007 Over and Above will be based on the Government Estimates listed in the Price Sheet, Attachment J-5. See L.5.2 Labor Component for additional information.

1. All indirect rates proposed under CLINs 0003, 0004, and 0005 will be evaluated for reasonableness and compliance with the Offeror’s proposed accounting practices. See L.5.5.2 Indirect Rates for additional information.

M.5.2 Other Pricing Considerations: Any inconsistencies between the Management Plan/Key Personnel or Transition Plan areas and the Price Proposal, such as unbalanced pricing, or other pricing anomalies may be assessed as proposal risk under the Management Plan/Key Personnel or Transition Plan evaluations, or as a Price concern regarding increased risk of additional Government Price during contract execution. The assessment of the Price proposal will include consideration of reasonableness and completeness:

1. Reasonableness. All proposed prices will be evaluated for reasonableness IAW FAR 15.305 using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404. The Government will evaluate the reasonableness of the Offeror’s proposed Costs/Prices in accordance with the definitions in FAR 31.201-3. A price is considered reasonable if it does not exceed what would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business.

1. Completeness. The Government will determine if the Offeror’s Price proposal is an accurate reflection of all aspects of the technical proposal; and will determine compliance with the price preparations instructions in the RFP section L.5.

M.6 Area 5: Past Performance (Volume 5)

The Past Performance evaluation considers the Offeror’s demonstrated record of performance in providing services and products that meet the users’ needs and in past performance regarding subcontracting. Past Performance evaluation shall focus on the recent and relevancy as defined in Table 3 of Section M.1.3.2 above regarding how well the contractor performed or is performing the same or similar type of work under other Government contracts.

1. Performance Risk considers those risks associated with an Offeror’s likelihood of success in performing the solicitation requirements as indicated by the Offeror’s record of past performance. The Government will conduct a performance risk assessment based on the Offeror’s past experience or performance on contracts that are of the same or of similar size, scope, and complexity as the effort required by this solicitation. The assessment will be used to determine the probability of successful accomplishment of this effort. The Government’s assessment will focus on the past performance of the Offeror and its proposed sub-contractors as it relates to the solicitation requirements such as cost, schedule, and performance (to specifically include previous contract fill rates). The Offeror’s record of activity identifying potential problems, as well as their ability to resolve actual problems with minimal impact of contract performance; the Offeror’s adherence to contract schedules, including the administration aspects of performance, the Offeror’s history of reasonableness and cooperative behavior and commitment to customer satisfaction; and the Offeror’s demonstrated ability to deliver services without claims or contract adjustments. In short, the evaluation will focus on the Offeror’s ability to deliver quality services relative to this solicitation, on time, on budget, and at a reasonable cost.

1. Past Performance evaluation will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies (e.g. ‘buy outs’ and name changes) and/or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to this acquisition.

1. Past Performance information may be obtained through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting Systems (CPARS), similar systems of other Government departments and agencies, questionnaires tailored to the circumstances of this acquisition, Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) channels, interviews with Program Managers and Contracting Officers, or other sources known to the Government, including commercial sources. Offerors should note that, in conducting this assessment, the Government reserves the right to use both data provided by the Offeror and data obtained from other sources however the Government is not limited to these resources.

1. Past Performance Rating Methodology - A significant achievement, problem, or lack of relevant data in any element of work can become an important consideration in the source selection process. A negative finding under any aspect may result in an overall low confidence rating. Therefore, Offerors are reminded to include all relevant past efforts (up to the limit of three references, of which one must be on behalf of the prime Offeror) regardless of perceived evaluation rating. Each contract submitted by the Offeror to substantiate past performance will be rated for relevancy by the Government and a rating of Highly Relevant, Relevant, Somewhat Relevant, or Not Relevant will be assigned. This relevancy rating will be used when considering how much weight to ascribe to each contract in determining the overall confidence rating as described in Table 4 of Section M.1.3.2 above. Contract Performance assessments will be made based upon the Offeror’s demonstrated performance in the assessed areas of evaluation. Failure to provide Past Performance dealing with use of personnel within the functional spectrum of CONUS/OCONUS Intel Support Services will be considered a proposal deficiency and will result in exclusion of the Offeror’s proposal from consideration for award.

CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

---------------------------------------------------------END OF SECTION M-------------------------------------------------------