0B SOFGSD Section M (Draft).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 SOFGSD contracts. The Government will evaluate each offeror’s capabilities and proposal elements against the evaluation criteria set forth below. This is a best value source selection in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15, Contracting by Negotiation, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and the Department of the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DAFFARS).

M1.2 EXCHANGES

M1.2.1 Initial proposals must contain the best and final offer as the Government plans to award without discussions. The Government may conduct clarifications as described in FAR 15.306. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary.

M1.2.2 Should exchanges be conducted, the Offeror’s response(s) to Evaluation Notices (ENs) will be considered in making the award selection decision. The Government may conduct exchanges either orally or in writing, and may issue questions to some, none, or all Offerors.

M1.2.3 Any discrepancies (defined as: difference between conflicting facts or claims or opinions) will be treated as clarifications but may not result in any changes to the proposal or submission of new supporting documentation.

M1.3 SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS, AND CONDITIONS

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representation and certification, and technical requirements, in addition to those requirements identified in Volumes II and III. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the Offeror being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions as unacceptable.

M2.0 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

M2.0.1 The Government intends to award a multiple-award Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract to ten (10) to fifteen (15) offerors so long as at least ten (10) to fifteen (15) proposals are eligible for award. Award will be made to the Offerors whose proposals are the best value to the Government based upon a Highest Technically Rated (HTRO) approach. The HTRO approach will best achieve the objective of awarding a contract to the Offerors of varying core expertise in a variety of service disciplines with qualities that are most important to USSOCOM.

M2.0.2 The Government intends to strictly enforce all the proposal submission requirements outlined in Section L. Failure to comply with these requirements may result in an Offeror’s proposal being non-compliant to the Solicitation and rejected.

M2.1 GENERAL EVALUATION PROCESSES

The Government will conduct a two (2) step evaluation process as stated below:

M2.1.1 STEP ONE: First, an acceptability (solicitation conformance) review will take place, as specified in Section M4.1 Volume 1. Any proposal that includes incomplete information or does not comply with the instructions set forth in this solicitation and minimum submission requirements may be removed from consideration for award without further evaluation. If a proposal does not pass step one, it will be removed from the list of the top ten (10) highest scoring proposals and the next highest ranked proposal that was not included in the list of the top ten (10) will be added to the list to maintain ten (10) proposals in the evaluation process. This process will repeat until a minimum of ten (10) or a maximum of fifteen (15) Offerors have passed the acceptability review or all proposals have completed the acceptability review, whichever comes first.

M2.1.2 STEP TWO: For those proposals which have passed step one, the Government will rank all proposals received in response to this solicitation in numeric order based on the Offeror’s submitted self-score. The Government will then validate / substantiate the Offeror’s Self-Score by assessing the Offeror’s proposal submission in comparison to the self-scores stated in the Offeror’s Self Scoring worksheet. If the data on the Offeror’s Self-Scoring worksheet is not substantiated and/or validated by the Government and a reduction in score is necessary, the Government will check to see if the reduction displaces the highest self-scored proposal that is not in the list of the “Top Ten”. If so, the next highest rated self-score proposal will begin at “STEP ONE”.

M2.1.3 Once the “Top Ten to Fifteen” proposal scores have been verified and validated (in accordance with the above process), the Government will then begin price evaluation (Factor 2) to determine if the proposed price is fair and reasonable, and realistic (total compensation plan (TCP)) in accordance with Section M5.0. In the event this offeror’s proposed price is determined not to be Fair and Reasonable or the TCP is determined unrealistic, then the Offeror will be eliminated from further consideration for award (unless discussions are determined necessary) and the next highest rated proposal identified will start the process, beginning with “STEP ONE” above.

M2.1.4 CAUTION: In the event the evaluation team discovers an inaccurate Self-Score with numerous point deductions based on ambiguous, deceptive, faulty, misleading, or inadequate supporting documentation, the Offeror shall immediately be eliminated from further consideration for award.

M2.1.5 This cycle will continue until the Government has verified and validated Factor 1 and determined that Offeror’s proposed price to be Fair and Reasonable and Realistic for the “Top Ten to Fifteen”.

M2.1.6 The Government will then complete the Contractor Responsibility Determination (CRD) requirements IAW FAR Part 9 for the “Top Ten to Fifteen”. If determined to be responsible, those Offeror’s proposals will represent the HTRO -- Highest Technically Rated Offeror, as providing the Best Value to the Government in accordance with this solicitation.

M2.1.7 The final determination of contract awardees will be based on the scores of validated Offerors. If Offerors 10 and 11 are determined to have the same validated score, then awards will be made to 11 offerors. If Offerors 15 and 16 are determined to have the same validated score, then awards will be made to 14 Offerors. The Government will award no less than 10 contracts and no more than 15 contracts.

M-3 VOLUME I – ADMINISTRATIVE AND RESPONSIBILITY MATERIAL (QUALIFYING CRITERIA)

The Offerors shall propose Volume I Administrative and Responsibility Material (Qualifying Criteria) in accordance with Section L. Volume I will be evaluated as an acceptability review and as acceptable/unacceptable against the criteria as described below. If the Offeror does not submit any portion of Volume I, as required by Section L, they will be determined to be unresponsive, and the Government reserves the right to determine the Offeror ineligible for award.

M3.1 VOLUME I – ADMINISTRATIVE DOCUMENTATION

M3.1.1 The Government will conduct an acceptability review of all items identified in Section L-2, L-3, and L-4 ensuring that all items have been submitted according to the instructions of this solicitation and meeting all the minimum requirements set forth in Section L. Offerors who fail any of the minimum requirements in the acceptability review will be removed from consideration for award and notified, in writing, as soon as practicable.

M3.1.2 The overall responsibility determination will be evaluated in accordance with FAR Part 9. Offerors that are not deemed responsible will not be considered for award.

M3.1.3 The Government will check that support documentation (i.e., work samples, cross reference matrix, self-scoring worksheet, price template, etc.) exists for all the evaluation criteria and that the documents are completed in accordance with the directions specified in this solicitation. In the event that a proposal does not conform to the solicitation or lacks supporting documentation, the Government will eliminate the proposal from further evaluation and consideration.

M-4 VOLUME II – FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL PROPOSAL AND SUBSTANTIATING DATA

The Government will validate the overall proposed technical score by evaluating the substantiated documentation submitted by the Offeror per the Self-Scoring Matrix category. Technical score adjustments will be made only if the substantiated documentation does not validate the scores; however, any adjustments will only be made in a downward direction. The Government will use Attachment 03 Cross Reference Matrix as the initial reference for the validation process. If there is any discrepancy between Attachment 03 and the substantiated documentation provided, the substantiated documentation will be given precedence.

M4.1 SELF-SCORING MATRIX SCORING CATEGORIES (GENERAL SCORE SHEET TAB)

M4.1.1 Category 1: Total Positions on a Single Work Sample EVALUATION BASIS: Number of contract personnel providing support at on a single work sample. This category is limited to one (1) Tier 1 work sample. To validate the Offeror’s self-score, the Government will corroborate the substantiated documentation by reviewing the work sample information for accuracy. The Offeror’s points will be validated based on the number of positions providing support.

M4.1.2 Category 2: Concurrent Performance at Various Geographic Sites EVALUATION BASIS: To validate the Offeror’s self-score, the Government will corroborate the substantiated documentation by reviewing the work samples information for accuracy. The Offeror’s points will be validated based on the number sites identified in the work samples where work is performed by their geographic location [CONUS, OCONUS, OCONUS (Only Germany and Korea)].

M4.1.3 Category 3: Percentage of Awarded Billets (Minimum Of 25 Billets) Hired or Transitioned Onto a Contract Within 30 Days of Award EVALUATION BASIS: To validate the Offeror’s self-score, the Government will corroborate the substantiated documentation by reviewing the work sample information for accuracy. This category is limited to one (1) Tier 1 work sample. The Offeror’s points will be validated based on the percentage of awarded billets hired or transitioned onto a contract within 30 days of award. The self-scoring matrix will calculate the score based on the percentage entered on the self-score worksheet.

M4.1.4 Category 4: Work Samples that Contain the Following Labor Categories (LCATs) EVALUATION BASIS: To validate the Offeror’s self-score, the Government will corroborate the substantiated documentation by reviewing the work samples information for accuracy. The Offeror’s points will be validated based on the number of LCATs identified on each work sample.

M4.1.5 Category 5: Work Samples that Cover the Requirements in the SOW EVALUATION BASIS: To validate the Offeror’s self-score, the Government will corroborate the substantiated documentation by reviewing the work samples information for accuracy. The Offeror’s points will be validated based whether that work sample covers the requirements identified in the SOW. The Government may also review current clearance status in Government databases.

M4.1.6 Category 6: Retention EVALUATION BASIS: To validate the Offeror’s self-score, the Government will corroborate the substantiated documentation by reviewing the work samples information for accuracy. This category is limited to one (1) Tier 1 work sample. The Offeror’s points will be validated based whether that work sample covers the requirements identified in the SOW.

M4.1.7 Category 7: Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) EVALUATION BASIS: To validate the Offeror’s self-score, the Government will review the narrative and rating of the fully completed CPARS report submitted by the Offeror and compare it with the Offeror’s total percent entry for the past performance scoring categories that were rated “Exceptional”, “Very Good”, “Satisfactory”, “Marginal”, or “Unsatisfactory.” The Government reserves the right to retrieve past performance data from government repositories to validate the past performance data submitted by the Offeror.

If a work sample does not have a CPAR, then that work sample will not be scored in this category. If all work samples do not have a work sample, then the Offeror will receive zero (0) points in this category. Additionally, if a work sample with a completed CPARS is assigned only “Exceptional”, “Very Good”, and “Satisfactory” ratings, then the Offeror will also receive zero (0) points in this category.

Important: The Government must be able to validate adjectival CPARS report ratings for EACH Period of Performance (PoP) of the contract/task order that is submitted as a work sample. For example, if a work sample PoP is three (3) years at the time of the solicitation release, the Government will need to validate all CPARS reports from that work sample, i.e., 3 total.

M4.2 BURDEN OF PROOF

The burden of proof for substantiating points in the self-score point system rests with the Offeror. The technical volume shall contain sufficient data to substantiate the points claimed in the Offeror’s proposal. Examples of documentation that when responsive and in the form/substance customarily utilized in federal acquisition and business operations typically would constitute sufficient data includes, but is not limited to: Contract Documentation (award document, FPDS report, Statement of Work, Performance Work Statement, solicitation document, invoice, CDRLs, etc.) and/or, Business Systems Documents (payroll data, banking information, timecard system outputs, etc.) and/or Operational Documentation (management/production/HR/etc. reports, recruiting documents, employment offers, employee rosters, etc.).

The submission of extracts may be appropriate and is permissible since it is not necessary to provide entire documents that include many pages of extraneous information, but extracts shall be clearly marked to indicate the clearly verifiable source. Use the cell in Attachment xx Cross Reference Matrix to indicate section and page number references that substantiate scores in the indicated row/column. Do not merely include a full document without specific reference to the section of the document that pertains to the proposal. It is not the Government’s responsibility to search through documentation provided without any clear, concise cross reference.

M-5 VOLUME III – FACTOR II: COST/PRICE

M5.1 STAFFING PROPOSAL

To be eligible for award for the first delivery order shall provide a completed Attachment 04 Staffing Proposal Pricing Template. The post award conference Total Proposed Price must equal $2,500.

M5.2 COST/PRICE INTRODUCTORY DOCUMENTS

The Government will evaluate submitted price introductory documents for compliance and completeness.

Serco Business

Serco Business

DRAFT - H9240025RE002

ADDENDUM A: LABOR CATEGORY DESCRIPTIONS FOR VALIDATION

This addendum is for Government validation of offeror’s self-score and is not intended to be performance requirements. The SOW functional area (Section X.X) details are included in the below descriptions. These descriptions may encompass many or additional facets of each LCAT. The Government will use these descriptions, in addition to the SOW functional area details, to validate the Offeror’s substantiated documentation for their self-score. Please see attachment titled “LCAT Descriptions” for detailed descriptions of the various LCATs listed on theour HTRO Self Score attachment.