04_Section_M_(Draft_20190510).docx

M-1 EVALUATION PROCESS

M1.1 Introduction. This section outlines the criteria the Government will use in evaluating the offeror’s proposals for the SCS contracts. The Government will evaluate each offeror’s capabilities and proposal elements against the evaluation criteria set forth 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 15, Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Part 215, and the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) Class Deviation 2018-O0006. The Government intends to make multiple prime contract awards under this solicitation.

M1.2 Evaluation. The Government will evaluate all proposals received against IDIQ Management and Past Performance in accordance with Table M.1. Order of Importance: Factors 1 and 2 are of equal importance.

Table M.1

I

M1.3 Eligibility. In order to be eligible for award, a proposal must comply in all material respects with the requirements of the law, regulation and the terms and conditions set forth in this solicitation; and the offeror must be determined responsible according to the standards set forth in FAR Subpart 9.1. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror’s proposal being considered unacceptable.

M-2 EVALUATION PROCEDURES FOR VOLUMES/FACTORS

M2.1 Volume I – Administrative and Responsibility Material: The Government will evaluate Volume I for completeness and compliance with instructions. This Volume shall be rated on a Pass/Fail basis.

M2.1.1 Facility Security Clearance. The offeror provided proof of a Cleared Top Secret Facility as accredited by the Defense Security Service (DSS). Offerors who fail this requirement shall be determined unacceptable and no further evaluation of their proposal will be conducted.

M2.1.2 Financial Capacity. The offeror provided proof of a line of credit for at least $1M. Offerors who fail this requirement shall be determined unacceptable and no further evaluation of their proposal will be conducted.

M2.1.3 Organizational Conflict of Interests. The offeror provided adequate information to avoid and/or mitigate current OCI. In order to evaluate actual or potential OCI, the Government will review the OCI Disclosure Forms submitted by the offeror as well as ongoing and in-process contracts within USSOCOM.

M2.1.4 Contract Forms and Certifications. The Offeror completed all required signatures and contract clauses, and all representations, certifications, acknowledgments, and statements in the Online Representations and Certifications Application (ORCA) or submits the Section K representation, certification, acknowledgement or statement.

M2.1.5 Current Adequate Accounting System. The offeror provided valid documentation from DCMA, DCAA or other Federal Audit Agency that they have an adequate accounting system for operating Government cost type contracts to be considered for award. If the offeror does not have current valid documentation, submission of Attachment 3 – Preaward Accounting System Checklist with supporting documentation is sufficient to be considered for award.

M2.2 Volume II – IDIQ Management. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposal and apply a Technical (Color) rating for Factor 1 IAW Section M Table M2.2. Evaluation of proposals will focus on the offeror’s ability and approach to meet and understand the SCS SOW requirements. Note that if an offeror’s proposal does not meet a Government requirement, it will result in an Unacceptable proposal. Offerors that simply restate the Government’s requirement will be rated unacceptable. The Government will evaluate the adequacy of the proposed approach and methodology to manage, resource, and execute the full range of SCS requirements. Evaluation of risk associated with the offeror’s proposal for this factor is inherent in the evaluation.

Table M2.2 Technical Ratings

M2.2.1 Program Management. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror’s overall Program Management Plan demonstrates a sound, practical methodology for satisfying the requirements stated in the solicitation. The assessment will focus on the offeror’s ability to ensure all resources are available to successfully execute SCS requirements.

M2.2.1.1 Capabilities. The Government will evaluate breadth and depth of the capabilities of the offeror (including teaming partners and subcontractors) in providing support of similar scope and size, to similar organizations. The Government will evaluate the breadth and depth of the offeror’s stability, agility, and reach in accomplishing the overall mission. Offerors that can describe the degree to which their team covers ALL required skill-levels, capabilities, and experience as required by the applicable SOW, will be viewed as capable of providing stability and agility. An offeror with redundancy within its team, in a manner that encourages healthy internal competition, will demonstrate agility and reach. A team construct that ensures equitable workshare will demonstrate stability. Descriptions of experience which include empirical summaries of results in transition, staffing, and issue resolution, as well as organizations that are disposed in multiple (global) locations, demonstrate all three Imperatives.

M2.2.1.2 Management Approach/Organization. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror’s overall management approach and structure satisfies the requirements of the solicitation. The Government will determine if the proposed approach and structure indicates an understanding of the requirements/imperatives including stability, agility and reach. The Government will also evaluate the extent to which the proposed team collectively demonstrates the expertise required to perform all contract requirements. The Government will evaluate how well the offeror’s management of subcontracts assumes the full burden of oversight and correction to effectively manage subcontractors; how well the processes assign subcontractors work, and integrate subcontractors; how well their processes account for first tier subcontractor, sub-contract dollars expended, and provides for on-site task leaders to coordinate sub-contractor efforts on task orders. A clearly understandable approach and structure that applies tangible resources and clear concepts, and ensures connectivity to client and to corporate resources, will demonstrate necessary agility and reach. The government will evaluate the lines of communication and control by which execution issues are presented, and responses or corrective actions are provided. Flat lines of communication that enable rapid information flow to decision makers will demonstrate all imperatives. The government will evaluate the extent to which the Contractor applies management resources to adequately oversee a globally dispersed workforce, multiple task orders and multiple subcontractors, which demonstrates stability, agility, and reach. Additionally, descriptions that include complete and clear delineation of all required management support functions (i.e. security, contract management, etc.), their locations and lines of responsibility, supervision, authority and decision making, will demonstrate stability and agility. The government will evaluate the adequacy of the offerors contract and task order transition plans to determine the team’s capability to meet key milestones and reach FOC to support the stability imperative.

M2.2.1.3 Human Resource Management/Process. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s methods to recruit, hire, train and retain a capable workforce to ensure all requirements of the solicitation are met. The Government will determine if the proposed methods indicate an understanding of the requirements including a large, geographically dispersed workforce. The Government will also evaluate the offeror’s approach to mission essential travel and OCONUS performance to ensure the offeror’s understanding of regulations and processes and their ability to meet them. The Government will evaluate the adequacy and effectiveness of the offeror’s understanding, procedures, and implementation of requirements involving OCONUS contractor support, such as SOFA, TESA, SPOT, etc. A comprehensive approach that addresses personnel availability and technical capability to meet mission requirements at all required locations demonstrates all three imperatives.

M.2.2.1.4 Security Management. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s approach to providing appropriately cleared facilities and personnel to support the requirements of the contract; the adequacy of processes for safeguarding classified materials and controlled unclassified information (to include handling, storage and transmission) IAW the requirements of the DD 254; and the soundness of its process for providing cleared personnel upon completion of the contract transition period and throughout contract performance.

M.2.2.1.5 Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI)/Process. The Government will evaluate how the offeror plans to identify, evaluate, and resolve any OCI that may occur through the life of the contract. The assessment will focus on the adequacy of the proposed OCI training and oversight programs, the adequacy of the proposed procedures for complying with Section H.4, and the soundness of the proposed process to protect proprietary and nonpublic information from unauthorized disclosure. Note: Current OCI will be evaluated IAW Volume I as a responsibility matter; the Volume II/Factor 1 evaluation shall address future OCI concerns. An approach that adequately defines OCI risk short and long term in a manner that protects the equities of all stakeholders will demonstrate stability.

M.2.2.1.6 Quality Control/Process. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s approach to providing sound business processes for monitoring contract performance. The evaluation will include an assessment of the offeror’s plan to address problem areas quickly to ensure contract performance requirements are met. An approach that adequately addresses quality control processes in a manner that ensure compliance with all contract requirements will demonstrate stability.

M2.3 Volume III – Factor 2: Past Performance. The Past Performance evaluation considers the offeror’s demonstrated record of performance in providing the services delineated in the SCS SOW. The performance rating is assessed at the overall Past Performance Factor level after evaluating aspects of the offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the SCS requirements. The Government will not evaluate personal references.

M2.3.1 The past performance evaluation will be based on the data gathered by information sheets, interviews, and assessments available through the Past Performance Retrieval System. The Government is not limited to these resources.

M2.3.2 The Government will evaluate the past performance of the efforts that meet the recency and relevancy in Section L in order to determine the Government’s overall level of confidence in the offeror’s ability to successfully perform the required effort using the ratings as described in Section M Table M2.3. In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant and/or recent past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the Offeror shall receive a Past Performance rating of “Unknown Confidence,” which equates to a neutral rating having neither positive nor negative evaluation significance. An “Unknown Confidence” rating is considered equivalent to a “Satisfactory” rating, and will not be considered for award.

Table M2.3

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-3 BASIS FOR AWARD

M3.1 General. To arrive at a source selection decision, the Source Selection Authority will perform an integrated assessment using the evaluation factors described in Section M-2.

M3.2 IDIQ Prime Contracts: Based on the evaluation factors listed, prime contracts will be awarded to all offerors that receive a Pass rating for Vol I – Administrative and Responsibility Matters, an Acceptable rating for Factor 1 – IDIQ Management, and a Substantial confidence rating in Factor 2 – Past Performance.