Attachment_9_-_ASAE_52.212-2.pdf

H92222-15-R-0004, Attachment 9

FAR 52.212-2 EVALUATION -- COMMERCIAL ITEM

(SECTION M)

FOR

DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/SURFACE SYSTEM

SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCES

ALL-SOURCE ANALYTICAL ENVIRONMENT

M.1 Best Value Introduction. This section outlines the criteria the Government will use in evaluating the offeror’s capabilities and proposals for the All-Source Analytical Environment (ASAE) contract. The Government will compare each offeror’s capabilities and proposal elements against the evaluation criteria listed in Section M.2 below. This is a competitive, best value, source selection using a tradeoff process that will be conducted in accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 12 and Part 15 and Defense Federal Acquisition

Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Part 212 and Part 215.

M.1.1 Best Value Evaluation. The Government will evaluate all proposals received against the following factors: Technical, Past and Present Performance, and Price. Technical (Factor 1) will be evaluated using a color rating technique. Past and Present Performance (Factor 2) will receive an overall confidence level rating. Price

(Factor 3) will not be given a color rating or scored. All administrative criteria (Volume 4) will be evaluated on a pass or fail basis.

M.1.2. The subfactors within the Technical factor are in descending order of importance. Technical (Factor 1) is more important than Past and Present Performance (Factor 2) and Price (Factor 3) at the Factor level. Price (Factor

3) is more important than Past and Present Performance (Factor 2). Factor 1 and Factor 2 when combined are significantly more important than Factor 3.

Table 1. Factor Rating Methods

Factor/Subfactor Title Factor/Subfactor Number Rating Method

Technical Factor 1 Rollup Color

Requirements Cross Reference Matrix Subfactor 1 Color

Demonstration 1: Interface Demonstration Subfactor 2 Color

Demonstration 2: Usability Demonstration Subfactor 3 Color

Implementation Plan Subfactor 4 Color/Risk

Past and Present Performance Factor 2 Confidence Assessment

Price Factor 3 Total Evaluated Price (All Years)

Administrative Criteria N/A Pass/Fail

M.2 Evaluation Criteria

Factor 1 – Technical Volume 1

Subfactor 1: Requirements Cross Reference Matrix (CRM)

Subfactor 2: Interface Demonstration

Subfactor 3: Usability Demonstration

Subfactor 4: Implementation Plan

Factor 2 – Past and Present Performance Volume 2

Factor 3 – Price Volume 3

Administrative Criteria Volume 4

M.2.1 VOLUME 1 – FACTOR 1 – Technical. Under the Technical Factor, the Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror’s overall proposed technical solution demonstrates a sound approach and understanding of the requirements stated in the solicitation. Evaluation of this factor shall focus on the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies of the offeror’s proposal. Evaluation of risk associated with the offeror’s proposal for this factor is inherent in the evaluation. The Government will invite those offerors whose proposals receive an Acceptable/Green or higher rating for Subfactor 1 to participate in the Interface Demonstration (Subfactor

2) and will only invite those offerors whose proposals receive an Acceptable/Green or higher rating for the Interface

Demonstration (Subfactor 2) to participate in the Usability Demonstration (Subfactor 3). An evaluation of Subfactor

4 will be accomplished only for those proposals submitted by offerors who received an Acceptable/Green or higher rating for Subfactors 1, 2, and 3. The Government will roll up subfactor ratings into an overall rating for this factor as outlined in Table 5 below. Subfactors are listed in descending order of importance.

M.2.1.1 Subfactor 1: Requirements Cross Reference Matrix. Under this subfactor, the Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror’s proposed ASAE software tool meets the requirements and Key

Performance Parameters (KPPs) outlined in the Functional Requirements Document (FRD) (RFP Attachment 2).

This subfactor will receive a color rating as outlined in Table 2 below. The Government will invite offerors whose proposals receive an Acceptable/Green or higher rating for Subfactor 1 to participate in Subfactor 2: Interface

Demonstration.

Table 2. Subfactor 1 Color Ratings

Color Rating Rating Scale Subfactor 1 Description

Blue Outstanding

Proposal meets 100% of the KPPs and meets 100% of all requirements in the

FRD.

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Purple Good

Proposal meets 100% of the KPPs, meets all 3 of the 3 requirements in the Advanced

Analytics category in the FRD, and meets at least 95 of the remaining 100 requirements in the FRD.

Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements.

Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Green Acceptable

Proposal meets 100% of the KPPs, meets all 3 of the 3 requirements in the Advanced

Analytics category in the FRD, and meets at least 90 of the remaining 100 requirements in the FRD.

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance.

Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Red Unacceptable

Proposal meets less than 100% of the

KPPs, and/or meets less than all 3 of the 3 requirements in the Advanced Analytics category in the FRD, and/or meets less than 90 of the remaining 100 requirements in the FRD.

Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is unawardable.

M.2.1.2 Subfactors 2 and 3: Demonstrations. Under these two subfactors, the Government will evaluate the offeror’s demonstrated understanding of the RFP requirements and validate the technical acceptability and user functionality of the proposed ASAE software tool based on the outcome of two demonstrations. The demonstrations will consist of an Interface Demonstration and a Usability Demonstration. These two subfactors will receive a color rating as outlined in Tables 3 and 4 below.

M.2.1.2.1 Subfactor 2: Interface Demonstration. Under this subfactor, the Government will evaluate the offeror’s ability to deliver an ASAE software tool that meets the KPPs and requirements stated in the FRD (RFP Attachment

2) and the offeror’s ability to integrate the proposed ASAE software tool into the Government’s virtual test environment. The Government will evaluate the Interface Demonstration by having evaluators score the offeror’s performance during the demonstration. Scoring for each item will be based on points, as outlined in the

Demonstration Plan (RFP Attachment 3). Each evaluator’s score will be multiplied by 2 for a maximum attainable score of 100. The offeror’s final score will be tabulated by summing each evaluator’s individual score, then taking the average. The scores will then be assigned a color rating as outlined in Table 3 below. The Government will invite offerors whose proposal receives an Acceptable/Green or higher rating for Subfactor 2 to participate in

Subfactor 3: Usability Demonstration.

Table 3. Subfactor 2 Color Ratings

Color Rating Rating Scale Subfactor 2 Description

Blue Outstanding Offeror earned 100 points out of a maximum attainable score of 100.

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Purple Good Offeror earned 95-99 points out of a maximum attainable score of 100.

Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements.

Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Green Acceptable Offeror earned 90-94 points out of a maximum attainable score of 100.

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance.

Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Red Unacceptable Offeror scored 89 or less points out of a maximum attainable score of 100.

Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or

M.2.1.2.2 Subfactor 3: Usability Demonstration. Under this subfactor, the Government will evaluate the offeror’s ability to demonstrate an ASAE software tool that accesses data directly from the DCGS-SOF Data Pre-Processing

Pipeline, while providing a SOF user the functionality required to query sources for the creation and display of analytical results within the DCGS-SOF UI workspace. The Government will evaluate the Usability Demonstration by collecting feedback from SOF user representatives after they have been trained and have employed the offeror’s proposed ASAE software tool. Scoring for each item will be based on points, as outlined in the Demonstration Plan

(RFP Attachment 3). The offeror’s final score will be determined by consensus of all individual user representatives.

The consensus score will then be multiplied by 2 for a maximum attainable score of 100. The score will then be assigned a color rating as outlined in Table 4 below. The Government will perform an evaluation of Subfactor 4 for those proposals submitted by offerors who received an Acceptable/Green or higher rating for Subfactors 1, 2, and 3.

Table 4. Subfactor 3 Color Ratings

Color Rating Rating Scale Subfactor 3 Description

Blue Outstanding Offeror earned 100 points out of a maximum attainable score of 100.

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Table 4. Subfactor 3 Color Ratings

Color Rating Rating Scale Subfactor 3 Description

Purple Good Offeror earned 95-99 points out of a maximum attainable score of 100.

Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements.

Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Green Acceptable Offeror earned 90-94 points out of a maximum attainable score of 100.

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance.

Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Red Unacceptable Offeror scored 89 or less points out of a maximum attainable score of 100.

Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or

M.2.1.3 Subfactor 4: Implementation Plan. Under this subfactor, the Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror’s outlined plan demonstrates clearly defined and sound business management practices and processes to meet the requirements outlined in the SOW (RFP Attachment 1). The evaluation will include an assessment of the offeror’s plan to initially integrate the ASAE software tool into DCGS-SOF and the proposed schedule for initial integration. The Government will further evaluate the extent to which the proposed plan meets the recurring requirements outlined in the SOW Section 3.5. The Government will determine if the proposal meets the requirements and to what degree the proposed approach indicates an understanding of the requirements per the definitions outlined in Table 5 below.

Table 5. Subfactor 4 and Overall Factor 1 Color and Risk Ratings

Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Purple Good

Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Green Acceptable

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is unawardable.

M.2.2 VOLUME 2 – FACTOR 2 – Past and Present Performance. 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 recency and relevancy as defined in the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 (Section L) regarding how well the offeror performed or is performing the same or similar type of work under other Government or commercial contracts.

M.2.2.1 The Government 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 Past or Present Performance Information Sheets, submitted eSRS reports or SF 294/295s, and the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System reports as available through the Past Performance Retrieval System. The Government is not limited to these resources.

M.2.2.2 The Government will evaluate the past and present performance of the efforts (that meet the recency and relevancy criteria in the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 (Section L) 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 within Table 6 below.

M.2.3 VOLUME 3 – FACTOR 3 – Price

M.2.3.1 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. The total price for each

CLIN will be calculated by multiplying the Government provided quantity by the offeror’s proposed unit price. The quantities selected per CLIN for each year for evaluation purposes will not be included in Attachment 8 of the RFP but are included within the approved Source Selection Plan which was finalized prior to RFP release.

The Government will roll up all total five year CLIN prices for a total evaluated price as outlined within Attachment

8. Price will not receive a color rating or score.

M.2.4 VOLUME 4 – Administrative Criteria. Information submitted for the administrative criteria will be evaluated to determine if the proposal meets the criteria below. If the offeror fails any of the administrative criteria, a deficiency will be documented. The offeror will be given the opportunity to correct the deficiency if the offeror is determined to be in the competitive range after evaluation of Subfactor 4. In order to pass the administrative criteria, the proposal must meet the minimum requirements below.

M.2.4.1 Facility Clearance. The offeror provided proof of a Cleared Top Secret Facility as accredited by the

Defense Security Service (DSS).

M.2.4.2 Contract Forms and Certifications. The offeror indicated 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 Addendum to FAR 52.212-1. All Contract Forms, Representations, and Certifications are completed as required.

Table 6. Performance Confidence Assessments

Rating Description

Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence

(Neutral)

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

M.2.4.3 Small Business Subcontracting Plan. The offeror provided a Small Business Subcontracting Plan that meets the minimum requirements in FAR Part 19.704 addressing every subpart (a) (1) through (a) (11).

This plan will become part of any resultant contact award as an attachment.

M.3 Basis of Award. To arrive at a source selection decision, the Source Selection Authority will perform an integrated assessment using the evaluation factors described in 52.212-2 Evaluation Commercial Items (Section M).

This may result in an award(s) being made to the higher rated, potentially higher priced offeror(s) where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors.