A2 SOFGSD Section M (r1 20260424).docx

H9240026RE001

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) Part 15, Contracting by Negotiation, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and the Special Operations Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (SOFARS).

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 15.202. 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, therefore making the offeror ineligible for award.

M2.0 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

M2.0.1 The Government intends to award a multiple-award Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract to the top 15 highest scored offerors, including ties, so long as at least 15 proposals are determined eligible for award. In the event that more than one offeror is tied for the 15th award, award will be made to all offerors with the same score in that 15th position. Award will be made to the Offerors whose proposals are the best value to the Government based upon a Highest Technically Rated Offer (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 with the Solicitation and rejected.

M2.1 GENERAL EVALUATION PROCESSES

Given the nature of this source selection approach, the Government does not intend to conduct discussions. However, the Government reserves the right to request clarifications if needed and reserves the right to hold discussions if necessary. The Government will conduct an evaluation process as stated below.

M2.1.1 STEP ONE: The Contracting Team will conduct an initial review of all offeror submissions in the Symphony Procurement Suite. 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 consideration and will not be eligible for award. The Offeror will be notified, in writing, as soon as practicable.

M2.1.2 STEP TWO: For those proposals which have passed step one, the Government will utilize the Symphony Score Card to establish the initial highest self-score. Starting with the highest self-score, the Government will evaluate and verify the proposal’s supporting documentation for each evaluation criteria to validate the Offeror’s Self-Score. If the Government determines there is a discrepancy between a claimed evaluation criteria and the supporting documentation, the Government will adjust the Offeror’s claimed score by the credit value of the difference between the claimed credits and the credits substantiated by the supporting documentation, and their validated score will determine their ranking for the purposes of the overall evaluation.

M2.1.2.1 The Government will conduct price evaluation (Factor 2) to determine if the proposed price is fair and reasonable in accordance with Section M-5, on the highest rated Offerors from M2.1.2. In the event an Offeror’s proposed price is determined not to be Fair and Reasonable, then the Offeror will be eliminated from further consideration for award.

M2.1.2.2 CAUTION: In the event the evaluation team discovers an inaccurate Self-Score based on ambiguous, deceptive, faulty, or misleading supporting documentation, the Offeror shall immediately be eliminated from further consideration for award.

M2.1.3 The Government will then complete the Contractor Responsibility Determination (CRD) requirements IAW FAR Part 9 for the apparent awardees. If determined to be responsible, those Offeror’s proposals will represent the HTRO -- Highest Technically Rated Offerors, as providing the Best Value to the Government in accordance with this solicitation.

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 on a pass/fail basis 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 unresponsive, and the Government reserves the right to determine the Offeror ineligible for award.

M3.1 VOLUME I – ADMINISTRATIVE DOCUMENTATION

M3.1.1 The following will be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis regarding whether the requested proposal submission information meets the criteria for the information requested in Section L.2, and is current, accurate, and complete:

1. Executive Summary

2. Organizational Structure Change History

3. Facility Clearance

4. Adequate Accounting System

5. Financial Capacity

6. Joint Venture InformationAgreements (as applicable)

7. Contract Forms and Certifications

8. Description of Teaming Agreements and Subcontractor Identification

9. SPRS and CMMC Compliance

M3.1.2 Any proposal that fails the review of administrative documentation will be removed from consideration for award, and the Offeror will be notified, in writing, as soon as practicable.

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

The Government will validate the overall proposed technical score by evaluating the substantiating documentation submitted by the Offeror per the Self-Scoring Matrix category. Technical score adjustments will be made only if the substantiating documentation does not validate the scores; however, any adjustments will only be made in a downward direction. The Government will use the Symphony Score Card as the initial reference for the validation process. If there is any discrepancy between the Symphony Score Card and the substantiating documentation provided, the substantiating 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 on a single work sample. This category is limited to one Tier 1 work sample. To validate the Offeror’s self-score, the Government will corroborate the substantiating documentation by reviewing the work sample information for accuracy. The Offeror’s points will be validated based on the number of positions providing support. The Government will utilize the scoring thresholds as identified in the “Instructions” tab of Attachment 02 – HTRO Self Score Matrix when evaluating scores for the protégé member of a Joint Venture.

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 substantiating documentation by reviewing the work samples information for accuracy. The Offeror’s points will be validated based on the number of 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 Positions 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 substantiating documentation by reviewing the work sample information for accuracy. The Offeror’s points will be validated based on the percentage of non-incumbent awarded positions hired or transitioned onto a contract within 30 days of awardthe performance start date across all work samples. The self-scoring matrix will calculate the score based on the percentage entered on the self-score worksheet. The Government will utilize the scoring thresholds as identified in the “Instructions” tab of Attachment 02 – HTRO Self Score Matrix when evaluating scores for the protégé member of a Joint Venture.

M4.1.4 Category 4: Work Samples that Contain the Specified Labor Categories (LCATs) EVALUATION BASIS: To validate the Offeror’s self-score, the Government will corroborate the substantiating documentation by reviewing the work samples information for accuracy in accordance with Attachment 03 – SOFGSD LCAT Descriptions. The Offeror’s points will be validated based on the number of LCATs identified on each work sample that meet the qualifications identified for that LCAT.

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 substantiating 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.

M4.1.6 Category 6: Retention EVALUATION BASIS: To validate the Offeror’s self-score, the Government will corroborate the substantiating documentation by reviewing the work samples information for accuracy. This category is limited to one Tier 1 work sample. The Offeror’s points will be validated based on the total number of contracted personnel consistently employed on contract over a 12-month period. The Government will utilize the scoring thresholds as identified in the “Instructions” tab of Attachment 02 – HTRO Self Score Matrix when evaluating scores for the protégé member of a Joint Venture.

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. Subcontractors may redact narratives and show only ratings in order for submission by the Prime Offeror within Symphony.

If a work sample does not have a CPARS, then that work sample will not be scored in this category. If all work samples do not have a CPARS, then the Offeror will receive zero 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 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 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.

NOTE: This category focuses solely on “Marginal” or “Unsatisfactory” ratings, which will result in a negative score and a decrease to the Offeror’s overall score. Ratings of “Exceptional,” “Very Good,” and “Satisfactory” are given a score of “0” (zero) and will not affect the Offeror’s overall score. Offerors with no CPARS associated with a work sample submission will also NOT be affected in this category, as there will be no NEGATIVE CPARS information to report.

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 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. 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

The Government will evaluate the Offeror's price proposal for reasonableness. This evaluation will be conducted on the fully burdened labor rates proposed in Attachment 04 – Staffing Proposal Pricing Template.

M5.1 POST-AWARD CONFERENCE PRICING

In accordance with L.4.2.2, to be eligible for award, the Offeror’s Total Proposed Price for the post-award conference must equal $2,500. Proposals that do not meet this requirement will be considered unacceptable and will not be considered for award. The Government will not conduct a separate price analysis on the total price for the post-award conference. In accordance with L.4.2.2, to be eligible for award, the Offeror’s Total Proposed Price for the post-award conference shall not exceed $2,500. Proposals with a Total Proposed Price for the post-award conference that exceeds $2,500 will be considered unacceptable and will not be considered for award. The Government will not conduct a separate price analysis on the total price for the post-award conference.

M5.2 LABOR RATE REASONABLENESS

The Government will perform a price evaluation to determine if the proposed fully burdened labor rates for the personnel attending the post-award conference are fair and reasonable. The Government may use one or more of the following techniques to ensure price reasonableness:

· Comparison of proposed rates received in response to the solicitation.

· Comparison of proposed rates with the Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE).

· Comparison of proposed rates with available market information.

For the purpose of this evaluation, the proposed labor rates will be assessed only in the context of the $2,500 minimum guarantee task order for the post-award conference. These rates will not be incorporated into the resulting contract and will not establish ceiling rates for future task orders. The primary purpose of this analysis is to ensure the Offeror’s price buildup to the required $2,500 is reasonable for the base award.

M5.3 COST/PRICE INTRODUCTORY DOCUMENTS

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