H92222-18-R-0010_Amd_1_Section_M__19_Apr18(Track_Changes).docx

H92222-18-R-0010-0001

Page 75 PAGE 1 of 75 NUMPAGES 5

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

EVALAUTION FACTORS

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

M.0 GENERAL

M.0.1 Best Value Tradeoff Introduction: This section outlines the criteria the Government will use in evaluating the offerors’ capabilities and proposals for the Preservation of the Force and Family (POTFF) Programs 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. This is a competitive, best value subjective tradeoff, source selection that will be conducted in accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15 and Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Part 215.

M.0.2 Best Value Evaluation: The Government will evaluate all proposals received against Technical (Factor 1), Past Performance (Factor 2), and Price (Factor 3). As stated in Section L.0.7, Administrative Criteria will be utilized as part of the separate determination of Contractor responsibility IAW FAR 9.104-1. This will be a Subjective Tradeoff source selection process which includes use of a combined Technical/Risk rating methodology for Factor 1 considering all three facets of the rating definitions (demonstrated Approach and Understanding, relationship of the strengths and weaknesses, and degree of Risk) when determining the Technical Factor color rating. The Government will conduct evaluations at the subfactor level, however an individual color rating for each subfactor within Factor 1 will not be assigned. Instead, the Government will assign a single color rating (one at the Factor 1 level) based on the evaluation findings and risk associated with each of the subfactors. The subfactors within Factor 1 are equal in importance. Factor 2 will receive an overall confidence assessment rating. Factor 3 will not be given a color rating or scored. Factor 1 is individually more important than Factor 2 and Factor 3. Factors 1 and 2 when combined, are significantly more important than Factor 3.

M.0.3 Evaluation Criteria

M.1 FACTOR 1: Technical: Under the Technical Factor, the Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror’s proposal demonstrates a sound, practical approach for satisfying the requirements stated in the solicitation. The three subfactors under the Technical Factor were developed through both consideration of the scope of the requirements (i.e. personal services), as well as a focus on those capabilities the Government considers to be most important for offerors to possess in order to achieve successful contract performance. The approaches, plans, processes, and team capabilities required to be demonstrated within these subfactors are equally important in order to achieve successful contract performance.

The Government will determine if the proposal meets or exceeds requirements, to what degree the proposed approach indicates an understanding of the requirements, and the level of risk to unsuccessful performance per the color rating definitions contained within Table 2 below.

The Government will utilize the combined Technical/Risk rating methodology contained within Table 2 below, which includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the evaluation findings; strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies of the offeror’s proposal when determining the Technical Factor color rating. Evaluation of risk will assess the degree to which the offeror’s proposed approach for meeting the requirements outlined in this solicitation may cause disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the increased likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. Risk is one aspect of the technical evaluation and contributes to determining the Factor level color rating.

If an offeror’s proposal demonstrates a material failure to meet a Government requirement, it is a deficiency in the offeror’s proposal.

The Government will favorably consider an element(s) of a proposal that offers tangible benefits to the Government that would be realized both during the initial transition period and throughout the period of performance and result in increased efficiencies and/or a reduced amount of Government oversight as a result of turnover, inadequate vetting of personnel, lack of proper oversight of subcontractors, failure to monitor credentials, etc. Identified strengths may be incorporated into any resultant contract award (i.e., added to the PWS, added as a Section H clause, etc.) as appropriate.

M.1.1 Subfactor 1: Management Organizational Structure and Teaming Arrangements: Under this subfactor, the Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror’s outlined plans for each organizational element demonstrates clearly defined responsibilities and sound business management practices and processes in order to meet the organization, management expertise (both key personnel and teaming partners) and subcontractor oversight required by this solicitation. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposed team (including key management personnel) collectively demonstrates the knowledge and expertise required of this solicitation.

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s management approach to interact with, allocate work to, and simultaneously exercise oversight/control over subcontractor cost, schedule, and performance of multiple teaming partners. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposed team demonstrates the ability to manage all pre-award task order functions, personnel recruiting and selection activities through final selection, while simultaneously managing the performance of existing task order personnel.

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror’s teaming arrangement has the required capabilities and expertise across all labor categories in addition to the required human resource and other personnel management related functions, and clearly demonstrates an understanding of all the requirements. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s subcontract management expertise and practices for assessing the personnel requirements of solicited tasks and determining the most effective allocation across the team while still ensuring the 15% Small Business subcontracting mandate is met without causing delays in meeting the contractual fill rates.

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s understanding of the type of services required and their ability to maintain accountability as well as consistency across all team members while still effectively supporting and managing requirements for numerous customers and geographically separated locations.

M.1.2 Subfactor 2: Personnel Management and Continuous Retention/Recruitment: Under this subfactor, the Government will evaluate the offeror’s approach to providing and retaining suitably qualified personnel, maintaining program continuity, and ensuring consistent and effective communications across the team, all employees, and the Government throughout the period of performance.

The evaluation will include an assessment of the offeror’s plan and team expertise to recruit and verify credentials of qualified personnel for the various components with a clear understanding of the labor category qualifications and the non-traditional military training environments they will be supporting.

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror’s approach to retention and training demonstrates the ability to retain, continuously develop, and compensate the required technical expertise across all team members while minimizing turnover throughout the contract performance period.

The Government will evaluate the proposed management capabilities and proposed use of automated management tools and determine to the extent they meet the reporting requirements, and demonstrates the ability to provide near real-time data to the Government (cost, schedule, and performance) for all task orders IAW PWS Section 2.3. Further, the Government will consider the extent to which these tools demonstrate the ability to create efficiencies, increase transparency of data, increase process automation, and assist the Government with improving data collection and analysis of program requirements.

M.1.3 Subfactor 3: Initial Phase-In Transition: Under this subfactor, the Government will evaluate the offeror’s approach to providing sound business practices, appropriate risk mitigation techniques, processes (including the various OCONUS deployment processes), and expertise in their management approach to transition the personnel supporting the USSOCOM POTFF Programs, across the USSOCOM Enterprise as described in the offeror’s phase-in transition plan. The evaluation will include an assessment of the offeror’s strategy to execute a realistic, organized, seamless, and timely contract phase-in leading to assumption of full contractual responsibility within the required timelines (PWS 6.0) while minimizing impacts to SOF users.

The Government will further evaluate the extent to which the offeror’s transition plan and timeline demonstrate a clear understanding of the government processes and/or roles in the hiring processes (in-person interviews, clearances, credentialing, and Government resume reviews), an understanding of the relationships and command trust that current incumbent personnel have built within Components and the extent to which the plan demonstrated the team’s ability to maintain such relationships (specifically highlighting those designated as “Critical "No Fail" Positions within PWS Appendix 2) during transition, the required timelines for transition, and contingency plans for insertion of non-incumbent employees in the event incumbent employees decline employment with their team. The phase-in transition plan will become part of any resultant contract award as an attachment.

SECTION M - Table 2. Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method

M.2 FACTOR 2: Past Performance: Evaluation of the Past Performance Factor considers the offeror’s (to include proposed major subcontractors) demonstrated record of performance in providing services and products that meet users’ needs and in past performance regarding subcontracting. Past Performance evaluation will focus on how well the offeror performed or is performing on other recent and relevant contracts. For proposed major subcontractors the evaluation will focus solely on work that the subcontractor is proposed to perform under this contract.

M.2.1 The Government will conduct a review and evaluation of all performance data obtained to determine how closely the work performed under those efforts relates to the current requirement utilizing the recency and relevancy criteria outlined in Sections L.2.1.3-4. All efforts meeting the recency criteria will be assessed for relevancy. For those efforts determined relevant a performance evaluation will be conducted based on the data gathered by both interviews with those references provided in the offeror’s proposal (Past Performance Information Sheets), submitted SF 294/295s or equivalents, and CPARS reports as available through the Past Performance Retrieval System (PPIRS). The Government is not limited to these resources. A performance rating will be established for each of those relevant efforts utilizing the same performance rating definitions contained within the CPARS.

M.2.2 Once all data has been gathered, the Government will assign a confidence assessment rating for Factor 2 considering the offeror’s team’s overall recent/relevant performance record. The Government will use a holistic approach to determine the Government’s overall level of confidence of the offeror’s team’s (including both the prime and major subcontractors) ability to successfully perform the required effort. The confidence assessments ratings with definitions that will be utilized are contained within Table 3 below.

SECTION M - Table 3. Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method

M.3 FACTOR 3: Price. Price proposals will be evaluated for reasonableness, realism, unbalanced pricing, and an understanding of the requirement (completeness). Inconsistencies between the proposed Price Volume and Technical Volume, unbalanced pricing, or other pricing anomalies may be assessed as proposal risk under the Technical Factor 1.

M.3.1 Price Matrix. IAW FAR 15.404 the Government will use price analysis techniques and procedures in order to determine whether the offeror’s proposed rates reflected in Attachment 3 are reasonable and realistic for the work to be performed, reflect a clear understanding of the solicitation requirements (completeness), and are consistent with the various elements of the offeror’s Technical proposal.

The Government will utilize the “Pre-Selected Full Time Equivalent (FTE)” quantities in the approved Source Selection Plan version of Attachment 3, which was finalized prior to RFP release, in order to arrive at a Total Evaluated Price (TEP). Offerors are required to propose rates for all 21 labor categories in all 264 geographic locations, in order to ensure maximum flexibility in meeting the continuously evolving program requirements, however, not all rates within each ordering period will be included in the calculation of the TEP.

The Pre-Selected FTE quantities consist of all current and future planned requirements (PWS Appendix 2 “Consolidated Requirements” Tab 4) and a random sampling across all ordering periods to ensure each labor category at each location is represented in the TEP by at least one of the two clearance levels.

The total price for each labor category across all Ordering Periods will be calculated by multiplying the Pre-Selected FTE quantities by the offeror’s proposed fully burdened labor rates x 1880 hours. Each total year price will be the sum of the total annual labor price plus the Government provided Material CLIN plug number of $1,000,000.00 with the applicable indirect rates applied. The total of all Ordering Periods 1-8, will be summed for a TEP as outlined in Attachment 3. Price will not receive a color rating or score.

M.3.2 Total Compensation Plan

IAW FAR provision 52.222-46 the Government will evaluate the plan to ensure 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.

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposed compensation levels reflect a clear understanding of work to be performed and demonstrate the capability to obtain and keep suitably qualified personnel to meet mission objectives. Additionally, proposals envisioning compensation levels lower than those of predecessor contractors for the same work will be evaluated on the basis of maintaining program continuity, uninterrupted high-quality work, and availability of required competent professional service employees.

M.4 Basis of Award. To arrive at a source selection decision, the Source Selection Authority (SSA) will perform an integrated assessment using the evaluation factors described above, including a subjective tradeoff process. The selection will be based on a determination of benefits to the Government weighed against the cost of the proposals to arrive at a best value decision. This may result in an award being made to a higher rated, higher priced offeror where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors.

image1.emf