Section_M_FRFP_120215.pdf

Section M, Evaluation Factors for Award H95001-10-R-0001

Missile Defense Agency Information Technology Collaboration Services (MICS)

Section M

Evaluation Factors for Award

Date: 17 Feb 2012

TABLE OF CONTENTS

M-01. GENERAL

M-01.1 CLAUSES

M-02. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

M-02.1 Competitive, Best Value Source Selection

M-02.2 Terms and Conditions

M-02.3 Offeror’s Best Terms

M-03. EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS

M-03.1 Factors/Subfactors

M-03.2 Technical and Management Factors

M-03.3 Technical and Management Risk Ratings

M-03.4 Contract (Complaince) and Technical Rating

M-04. EVALUATION

M-04.1 Executive Summary

M-04.2 Contract

M-04.3 Factor 1 - Past Performance Factor

M-04.4 Factor 2 - Technical Factor

M-04.5 Factor 3 - Management Factor

M-04.6 Cost/Price Factor

M-01. GENERAL

M-01.1 CLAUSES

None

M-02. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

M-02.1 Competitive, Best Value Source Selection This is a competitive, Best Value source selection conducted in accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, as supplemented by the Department of Defense FAR Supplement (DFARS) 215.3 and supplemental DoD and Missile Defense Agency (MDA) guidance. This requirement is a Total Set-Aside for Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Businesses (SDVOSB), IAW FAR Part 19.14 - Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business Procurement Program, under North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) Code 541513 – Computer Facilities Management Services. The Small Business Size Standard for NAICS Code 541513 is $25.0M. The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of past performance, technical, management, and Cost/Price. The Source Selection Authority (SSA) will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation (described below).

To be eligible for award, the Offeror must be deemed responsible in accordance with FAR 9.1;

have an accounting system adequate for determining costs applicable to the contract IAW FAR 16.301-3(a)(1) and 9.104-1; meet all requirements of the solicitation; conform to all required terms and conditions, unless a proposed exception is accepted by the Government; and include applicable required representations and certifications.

The Government seeks to award to the Offeror who provides the Best Value in meeting and/or exceeding the requirements. Even though Cost/Price is a factor in this source selection, a Best Value decision, IAW FAR 15.101, may result in an award to a higher-rated, higher-priced Offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation criteria and the SSA reasonably determines that the technical superiority and/or overall management approach and/or superior past performance of the higher priced Offeror outweighs the Cost/Price difference. In making the Best Value award decision, the SSA may consider a strong record of relevant past performance more advantageous to the Government than an Unknown Confidence (Neutral) assessment. While the Government source selection evaluation team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the Source Selection process by nature is subjective and, therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

M-02.2 Terms and Conditions By submission of its offer, the Offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, requirements, and constraints, unless exceptions are properly identified per instructions in Section L-03.2.

M-02.3 Offeror’s Best Terms The Government reserves the right to consider as acceptable only those proposals submitted in accordance with all instructions set forth or referenced in this solicitation. A proposal that omits material elements required of the solicitation may be excluded from further consideration for contract award. Failure to comply with the requirements of laws and regulations set forth or referenced in the solicitation may affect eligibility for award. The Government may reject any or all offers if such action is determined to be in the Government’s best interest.

The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unrealistic, including contract terms and conditions, or unrealistically high or low in cost/price when compared to the Government cost realism analysis, or such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of understanding/competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the requirement.

The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the correction potential of any deficiency, significant weakness, or adverse past performance to which the Offeror has not yet had an opportunity to respond. The judgment of such correction potential is within the sole discretion of the Government. If any aspect of an Offeror's proposal not meeting the Government's requirements is not considered correctable or correctable only through a major proposal revision, the Offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range. The Government will use this information to support competitive range and contract award decisions, as applicable.

M-03. EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS

M-03.1 Factors/Subfactors The Government will make tradeoffs among the factors and subfactors listed in Table M-03-1.

The Government will select the offer which represents the best overall value based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation of Past Performance, Technical, Management, and Cost/Price factors and subfactors described below.

Evaluation Factors/Subfactors Relative Importance * Factor 1 (F1): Past Performance F1 (Past Performance) is more important than

F2 (Technical) and F3 (Management) combined; F2 and F3 are approximately equal.

F1, F2, and F3, when combined, are significantly more important than F4 (Cost/Price).

Factor 2 (F2): Technical F1 (Past Performance) is more important than F2 (Technical) and F3 (Management) combined; F2 and F3 are approximately equal.

F1, F2, and F3, when combined, are significantly more important than F4 (Cost/Price).

Subfactor TS1: Technical Approach TS1 is significantly more important than TS2.

Subfactor TS2: Customer Training Approach TS2 is significantly more important than TS3.

Subfactor TS3: Cloud Computing Approach TS1 and TS2 individually are significantly more important than TS3.

Factor 3 (F3): Management F1 (Past Performance) is more important than

F2 (Technical) and F3 (Management) combined; F2 and F3 are approximately equal.

F1, F2, and F3, when combined, are significantly more important than F4 (Cost/Price).

Subfactor MS1: Management Plan MS1 (Management Plan) is more important than MS2 (Risk Management Plan) and MS3 (Quality Assurance Program Plan) combined;

MS2 and MS3 are approximately equal.

Subfactor MS2: Risk Management Plan MS1 (Management Plan) is more important than MS2 (Risk Management Plan) and MS3 (Quality Assurance Program Plan) combined;

MS2 and MS3 are approximately equal.

Subfactor MS3: Quality Assurance Program Plan (QAPP)

MS1 (Management Plan) is more important than MS2 (Risk Management Plan) and MS3 (Quality Assurance Program Plan) combined;

MS2 and MS3 are approximately equal.

Factor 4 (F4): Cost/Price F1 (Past Performance) is more important than F2 (Technical) and F3 (Management) combined; F2 and F3 are approximately equal.

F1, F2, and F3, when combined, are significantly more important than F4 (Cost/Price).

Table M-03-1 Evaluation Factors/Subfactors

* Non-Cost/Price factors, when combined, are significantly more important than the Cost/Price factor. However, the Cost/Price factor will contribute to the Best Value selection decision.

The Government will evaluate the Prime Offeror’s and Teammate’s/Subcontractor’s Past Performance submittals for recency, relevancy, and performance and assign a performance confidence assessment for the Past Performance factor.

The Government will assign a color and a risk rating to each Technical and Management subfactor and write a narrative evaluation reflecting, at a minimum, the subfactor’s relative strengths, uncertainties, weaknesses, significant weaknesses and deficiencies.

M-03.2 Technical and Management Factors The Technical and Management subfactor rating provides an assessment of the Offeror's capability to satisfy the Government's requirements. Each F2 (Technical) subfactor and F3 (Management) subfactor, will receive one of the color ratings described in Table M-03-2. They focus on the strengths, uncertainties, and deficiencies of the Offeror's proposal. The color rating depicts how well the Offeror’s proposal meets the Technical or Management subfactor requirements.

Exception: Volume IV – Technical Tab 3: Cloud Computing Approach will be assessed and rated Acceptable or Unacceptable IAW M-03.4.

Color Rating Description

BLUE Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal contains multiple strengths and no deficiencies.

PURPLE Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal contains at least one strength and no deficiencies.

GREEN Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal has no strengths or deficiencies.

YELLOW Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

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

Table M-03-2 Technical and Management Ratings

Discriminator Description

Strength An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Significant Weakness

A flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Deficiency A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

Uncertainty

A doubt regarding whether an aspect of the proposal meets a material performance or capability requirement. It requires additional information from the Offeror to further explain the proposal before the evaluator can complete his/her review and analysis and should generate the issuance of an

EN.

Table M-03-3 Technical and Management Discriminator Descriptions

M-03.3 Technical and Management Risk Ratings The Technical and Management evaluation focuses on the weaknesses, significant weaknesses and deficiencies associated with an Offeror's proposed approach and includes an assessment of the potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

Each Technical and Management subfactor will receive one of the risk ratings described in Table M-03-3. They focus on the weaknesses, significant weaknesses and deficiencies of the Offeror’s proposed approach to each of the Technical and Management subfactors. For any weakness, significant weakness or deficiency identified, the evaluation shall address the Offeror's proposed mitigation and why that mitigation approach is or is not manageable.

Exception: Volume IV – Technical Tab 3: Cloud Computing Approach will be assessed and rated Acceptable or Unacceptable IAW M-03.4.

Rating Description

Low Has little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Can potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High Is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Table M-03-4 Technical and Management Risk Ratings

Rating Description

Weakness A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Significant Weakness

A flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Deficiency A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

Table M-03-5 Risk Rating Discriminators

M-03.4 Contract (Complaince) and Technical Ratings The following ratings will apply only to Volume II – Contract Tabs 1: SF33, 2: Exceptions to Terms Conditions, or Provisions of the Solicitation, 3: ORCA, 4: OCI Plan and Disclosure, 5:

Notice of EVMS, 6: Continuation of Essential Contractor Services and Disaster Recovery/Continuity of Operations Plan (DR/COOP), and 7: SDVOSB Utilization Plan, and Volume IV – Technical Tab 3: Cloud Computing Approach.

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Table M-03-6 Contract and Technical Ratings

M-04. EVALUATION

M-04.1 Executive Summary Will not be evaluated.

M-04.2 Contract

M-04.2.1 Tab 1- Standard Form 33 (SF33), Tab 2 - Exceptions to Terms, Conditions, or Provisions of the Solicitation, Tab 3 – Online Representations and Certifications Application (ORCA), Tab 6 – Continuation of Essential Contractor Services and Disaster Recovery/Continuity of Operations Plan (DR/COOP) (Continuation of Essential Contractor Services portion only), and Tab 7 – SDVOSB Utilization Plan will be evaluated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis for compliance with applicable solicitation, FAR, and DFARS requirements. Award eligibility is predicated on an acceptable SDVOSB Utilization Plan determination by the Government.

M-04.2.2 Tab 4 - Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) Plan and Disclosure Forms will be evaluated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed OCI Plan for compliance with the requirements of FAR 9.5, DFARS 209.5, and the requirements of this solicitation. The Offeror’s identification of actual or potential conflicts of interest, supplemented by additional information obtained by the Government will be analyzed against the Offeror’s plan to mitigate, eliminate or avoid the conflict. Failure to submit and negotiate an acceptable OCI Plan or receive a waiver shall make the Offeror ineligible for award of the contract.

M-04.2.2.1 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed OCI Plan for adequate processes and procedures for:

M-04.2.2.2 Identification, disclosure, evaluation and resolution/mitigation of potential and actual OCI and Personal Conflicts of Interest (PCI) for the Prime Contractor and Teammates/Subcontractors;

M-04.2.2.3 Initial and recurring OCI training and oversight for the Prime Contractor and Teammates/Subcontractors;

M-04.2.2.4 Procedures to protect all forms and types of non-public Government (For Official Use Only (FOUO and Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI)) and proprietary Contractor information and data.

M-04.2.3 Tab 5 - Notice of Earned Value Management System (EVMS) or Plan will be evaluated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis. The Offeror’s applicable Notice of EVMS will be evaluated for compliance with DFARS 252.234-7001, and adequacy of plans (ref. DFARS 252.234-7001(a) or procedures (ref. DFARS 252.234-7001(b)).

M-04.3 Factor 1 - Past Performance Factor The Past Performance evaluation assesses the degree of confidence the Government has in an Offeror’s ability to supply products and services that meet user’s needs, including Cost/Price and schedule, based on a demonstrated record of recent and relevant performance. Both the Prime Offeror and Teammate’s/Subcontractor’s past performance will be evaluated. The Government will conduct an overall assessment of confidence in the Offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements.

M-04.3.1 Performance Confidence Assessment The Past Performance Factor will be assigned one of the assessment ratings described in Table M-04-1. Performance confidence will be assessed at the overall Past Performance Factor level, as described in Table M-04-1. Past performance will be assessed for recency, relevancy, and performance. The Government may consider past performance information from individual contract references and in the aggregate. In evaluating Past Performance, the Government reserves the right to use information provided in the Offeror’s Past Performance Information (PPI), Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ) and any additional information obtained from other sources known or identified by the Government. Evaluators may augment questionnaire responses through dialogue with personnel completing the questionnaires.

In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no confidence assessment can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive an Unknown Confidence (Neutral) assessment for the past performance factor.

Table M-04-1 Performance Confidence Assessment

M-04.3.2 Recency Assessment The Government will assess past performance information, including PPI and PPQ data, to determine if it is recent. For evaluation purposes, recent is defined as an effort that is ongoing or was being performed during the past three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation.

If any part of the performance falls within the above timeframe, the contract in its entirety may be evaluated for past performance. For example, for a contract completed two (2) years ago, the Government may also consider the Phase-In portion of that contract that occurred more than three (3) years ago. Past performance information that does not meet the above conditions will be considered not recent and will not be considered for evaluation.

M-04.3.3 Relevancy Assessment The Government will evaluate recent performance information, including PPI and PPQ data, to determine how closely the services performed under those contracts relate to the Technical, Management, and Cost/Price factors/subfactors. In assessing relevancy, as described in Table M-04-2, consideration will be primarily given to similarity of scope (technical and management), magnitude (contract type and value), and complexity. The Government is not bound by the Offeror’s opinion of relevancy. The Government may consider as relevant, efforts performed for other agencies of federal, state, or local governments, and commercial customers. A relevancy determination of the Offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations, including Teammates/Subcontractors. In determining relevancy for individual

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.

contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the Offeror or Teammate/Subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated.

With respect to relevancy, more relevant past performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance.

In considering how relevant an Offeror’s performance history is to this acquisition, the Government will assign one of the following relevancy assessments to each past performance citation:

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Table M-04-2 Past Performance Ratings

M-04.3.4 Performance Assessment The Government will consider the performance level of recent, relevant efforts in assessing performance described in Table M-04-3. In evaluating the Offeror’s past performance record, the Government will use past performance information obtained from various sources known or identified by the Government. Evaluation of past performance will be based on consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances.

The Government will evaluate the following as part of the Performance Assessment:

M-04.3.4.1 Quality of Product or Service – The Offeror will be evaluated on compliance with previous contract requirements, accuracy of reports, and technical excellence;

M-04.3.4.2 Timeliness of Performance – The Offeror will be evaluated on meeting milestones, reliability, responsiveness to technical direction, deliverables completed on-time, adherence to contract schedules;

M-04.3.4.3 Cost Control – The Offeror will be evaluated on the ability to perform within or below estimated costs, use of cost efficiencies, use of innovative approaches and new technologies to drive cost savings, relationship of negotiated costs to actuals, submission of reasonably priced proposals, and providing timely current, accurate, and complete invoicing;

M-04.3.4.4 Business Relations – The Offeror will be evaluated on their ability to provide effective programmatic management, management of key personnel, cooperative and proactive behavior with the technical representative(s) and Contracting Officer, flexibility, responsiveness to inquiries, problem resolution, and customer satisfaction.

The Government will assign one of the following performance ratings to each past performance citation:

Rating* Description

Exceptional (E)

Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government’s benefit. Performance was accomplished with few minor problems, for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor were highly effective.

Very Good (VG)

Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s benefit. Performance was accomplished with some minor problems, for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor were effective.

Satisfactory (S) Performance meets contractual requirements. Performance was accomplished with some minor problems, for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor appeared or were satisfactory.

Marginal (M)

Performance does not meet some contractual requirements.

Performance reflects a serious problem, for which the Contractor has not identified corrective actions or corrective actions appeared only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

Unsatisfactory (US)

Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. Performance contains serious problems, for which the Contractor’s corrective actions appeared or were ineffective.

Not Applicable (N/A)

Unable to provide a rating. Performance in this area not applicable to effort assessed.

Table M-04-3 Performance Assessment Ratings

*Color coding of Performance Assessment Ratings are allowable and are for administrative use only. The color coding is not part of the evaluation, but the ratings and descriptions are.

M-04.3.5 Adverse Past Performance The assessment of past performance information may result in positive or adverse findings.

Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received for which the Offeror has not had an opportunity to respond. The Offeror will be given an opportunity to respond to any adverse past performance information obtained by the Government, which the Offeror did not previously have an opportunity to address.

M-04.4 Factor 2 - Technical Factor The Government Technical Evaluation Team will evaluate the overall technical capability of each Offeror. The evaluation will focus on compliance with solicitation requirements and the Performance Work Statement (PWS), assessed strengths, uncertainties, significant weaknesses and deficiencies. Each subfactor within the Technical factor will receive one of the color ratings described in Table M-03-2 with the exception of TS3 – Cloud Computing Approach, which will receive an Acceptable/Unacceptable rating. Technical subfactor color ratings will not be rolled up into an overall Technical factor color rating. The color ratings will be based on the evaluated strengths, uncertainties and/or deficiencies of each Offeror’s proposal as they relate to each of the Technical subfactors.

The Government will assess technical risk associated at the subfactor level focused on weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and/or deficiencies associated with the Offeror’s proposed Technical Approach. The technical risk rating assesses the degree to which an Offeror’s proposed approach to achieving the Technical Subfactor may involve risk of disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. Each subfactor within the Technical factor will receive one of the risk ratings described in Table M-03-4. Technical subfactor risk ratings will not be rolled up into an overall Technical risk rating.

M-04.4.1 Technical Subfactor 1 (TS1) – Technical Approach The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed Technical Approach to include:

M-04.4.1.1 A thorough understanding of PWS technical requirements;

M-04.4.1.2 Potential efficiencies that are viable for delivery, management, operations and maintenance of technical requirements;

M-04.4.1.3 A complete understanding of adequate processes, coordination, and execution requirements for Critical Performance Objectives (CPO);

M-04.4.1.4 A thorough understanding of adequate processes, coordination, and execution requirements for Essential Contractor Services

M-04.4.2 Technical Subfactor 2 (TS2) – Customer Training Approach The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed Customer Training Approach for:

M-04.4.2.1 An understanding of an adequate training methodology and processes, procedures, and tools for enhancing user’s skills in the use of collaboration systems/capabilities, applications and productivity tools;

M-04.4.2.2 Thorough understanding of customer training requirements and training methodologies to enable proficient user operation of collaboration systems/capabilities, applications and productivity tools;

M-04.4.2.3 Classroom Training (Traditional and Distance Learning);

M-04.4.2.4 Desk-side Training;

M-04.4.2.5 Computer-Based Training (CBT);

M-04.4.2.6 Frequency of training;

M-04.4.2.7 Measuring training effectiveness;

M-04.4.2.8 Accurate content, logical sequencing, training methodology, quality of materials for the MS Office 2007 Outlook Calendar Sample Classroom and Desk Side Training Package.

M-04.4.3 Technical Sub-factor (TS3) - Cloud Computing Approach The Government will evaluate on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis the Offeror’s Cloud Computing Approach based on:

M-04.4.3.1 Methodology to achieve/execute the potential transition, delivery, and management of the Unclassified MDA Knowledge Online (UMKO) (Microsoft SharePoint based) services to a Cloud Computing environment;

M-04.4.3.2 A thorough understanding of Cloud Computing capabilities and deployment models (e.g., public, private, hybrid, and community);

M-04.4.3.3 Consideration of current and near-term Secure DoD compliant Cloud Computing services;

M-04.4.3.4 Viable transition, delivery, and management (policies, processes, governance, and standards) of Cloud Computing services;

M-04.4.3.5 Inclusion of potential operational efficiencies that are viable for information sharing and collaboration within the MDA global environment.

M-04.5 Factor 3 - Management Factor The Government management evaluation team will evaluate the overall management capability of each Offeror. The evaluation will focus on compliance with solicitation requirements and the Performance Work Statement (PWS), assesses strengths, uncertainties, significant weaknesses and deficiencies. Each subfactor within the Management factor will receive one of the color ratings described in Table M-03-2. Management subfactor color ratings will not be rolled up into an overall Management factor color rating. The color ratings will be based on the evaluated strengths, uncertainties, and/or deficiencies of each Offeror’s proposal as they relate to each of the Management subfactors.

The Government will assess risk associated at the subfactor level focused on weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and/or deficiencies associated with the Offeror’s proposed Management Approach. The management risk rating assesses the degree to which an Offeror’s proposed approach to achieving the management subfactor may involve risk of disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. Each subfactor within the Management factor will receive one of the risk ratings described in Table M-03-4. Management subfactor risk ratings will not be rolled up into an overall Management risk rating.

M-04.5.1 Management Subfactor 1 (MS1) – Management Plan The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed plan to manage personnel and resources to provide effective and efficient Technical and Programmatic/Business support in order to meet the cost, schedule, and performance requirements of the contract. The Offeror’s proposed approach will be assessed for:

M-04.5.1.1 Comprehensive methodologies, processes, and procedures for executing Program and Business Management activities;

M-04.5.1.2 Comprehensive Workforce Management processes and procedures;

M-04.5.1.3 Comprehensive Subcontract Management processes and procedures;

M-04.5.1.4 Processes for establishment and management of Associate Contractor Agreements and execution of cross-contract coordination;

M-04.5.1.5 Completeness and executability of Phase-In/Transition Plan.

M-04.5.2 Management Subfactor 2 (MS2) – Risk Management Plan The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed Risk Management Plan for:

M-04.5.2.1 Comprehensive methodology and detailed processes and procedures;

M-04.5.2.2 Comprehensive risk identification with detailed analysis, mitigation strategies, planning, implementation, and tracking techniques.

M-04.5.2.3 Comprehensive risk mitigation strategies of Government identified risks (Section L, Attachment L-7).

M-04.5.3 Management Subfactor 3 (MS3) – Quality Assurance Program Plan (QAPP) The Offeror’s QAPP will be assessed for:

M-04.5.3.1 Completeness of Quality Assurance (QA) methodologies including management responsibilities, quality planning, process documentation, control of processes, control of quality records, in-process quality assessments, and quality audits, and statistical techniques;

M-04.5.3.2 Detailed procedures for tracking CPO including metrics, analysis, and reporting;

M-04.5.3.3 Comprehensive processes for reporting and resolution of Government and/or Contractor Identified Discrepancies, and implementation of preventive/corrective actions.

M-04.6 Factor 4 - Cost/Price Factor

M-04.6.1 Affordability, Reasonableness, and Realism The Cost/Price factor evaluation is comprised of an assessment of affordability, reasonableness, and cost realism. Cost realism issues and the overall evaluated Probable Cost/Price will be presented to the Source Selection Authority (SSA) for consideration in making the Best Value determination. Cost/Price will not receive a color rating. The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s Cost/Price proposal using one or more of the techniques described in FAR 15.404.

An unaffordable proposal may be eliminated from consideration for award during the proposal evaluation process if the SSA determines elimination of the Offeror’s proposal is in the best interest of the Government.

Cost and Price Reasonableness will be determined by comparison of the competitively proposed prices for Firm Fixed Price (FFP) CLINs and by Cost Realism analysis of the competitively proposed cost and target fee for cost type CLINs. In the event that the Contracting Officer determines competition was not adequate, proposals will be evaluated to assess the reasonableness using one or more of the techniques described in FAR 15.404.

Cost Realism analysis is the process of independently reviewing and evaluating specific elements of each Offeror’s proposed cost estimate to determine whether the estimated proposed cost elements are realistic for the work to be performed, reflect a clear understanding of the requirements, and are consistent with the unique methods of performance described in the Offeror’s proposal. The burden of proof for Cost Realism rests with the Offeror. Accordingly, proposals will be evaluated to assess the likelihood that the proposed technical and management approach can successfully accomplish the PWS requirements at the proposed price for FFP CLINs and the competitively proposed target cost and target fee for cost type CLINs. Cost Realism may also be used in performance of risk assessments and responsibility determinations.

M-04.6.2 For cost type CLINs, the result of Cost Realism analysis is the Probable Cost. The Probable Cost may differ from the proposed cost and will reflect the Government’s best estimate of the cost that is most likely to result from the Offeror’s proposal. The Government’s evaluated Probable Cost will consist of the following elements:

M-04.6.2.1 Adjustments to correct for noticeable errors;

M-04.6.2.2 When appropriate, based on Cost Realism analysis, adjustments to proposed cost to realistic levels based on analysis of the proposed resources by the management and technical evaluation teams;

M-04.6.2.3 Adjustments to proposed direct and indirect costs, to realistic levels;

M-04.6.2.4 Adjustments to fee elements for Cost Plus incentive Fee (CPIF) CLINs at the Probable Cost and;

M-04.6.2.5 Adjustments for program cost resulting from the Offeror’s approach (e.g., additional GFP requirements).

M-04.6.3 For FFP type CLINs, Cost Realism issues that increase the risk of quality or service shortfalls will be presented to the SSA for consideration when determining Best Value.

M-04.6.4 Overall Evaluated Probable Cost Overall evaluated Probable Cost will be used to determine the Best value. The overall evaluated Probable Cost will be the sum of:

M-04.6.4.1 The Probable Cost and Fee for all cost type CLINs;

M-04.6.4.2 The proposed price of FFP CLINs and;

M-04.6.4.3 The total amount of any additional costs to the Government which are necessary to support the Offeror’s unique approach (e.g., Government Furnished Equipment, Information, Facilities, and any other Government Property proposed by the Offeror).