Section_M___Revised_Eval_Crit__FINAL.docx

UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

52.212-2 Evaluation—Commercial Items (Oct 2014)

ADDENDA – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

BASIS FOR AWARD

1. This is a best value evaluation conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) Part 15.101-1, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS). The Government will award to the best overall offer based upon an integrated assessment of the overall Technical & Management, Past Performance, and Price factors below. The Government will award one (1) contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer, conforming to the solicitation requirements and is evaluated, based on evaluation factors, to represent the best value to the Government. The Government seeks to award to the offeror who gives the greatest confidence, and best meets or exceeds the requirements. This may result in an award to the higher rated and/or higher priced Offeror. For example, where the decision is consistent with evaluation factors and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the higher rated non-priced factor responses of the higher Price offeror outweighs the price difference the SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation.

2. The Government may reject any or all offers if such action is determined to be in the best interest of the Government. The Government will select the best overall offer based on the following evaluation criteria:

Factor 1 - Technical & Management Factor 2 - Past Performance Factor 3 - Price

The relative order of importance for evaluation factors are as follows:

Factor 1 - Technical and Management is more important than Factor 2 - Past Performance. The Non-Price factors (Factors 1 and 2) when combined are SIGNIFICANTLY MORE IMPORTANT THAN Factor 3 - Price in the award decision.

For Factor 1 – Technical and Management, all sub-factors are listed in order of importance and will be weighted into the overall Factor 1 – Technical and Management.

Factor 4 - Price becomes increasingly more important in award selection when other criteria are substantially equal. This process permits trade-offs among Price and non-price factors and allows the Government to select other than the lowest Price proposal, or other than the highest technically rated offer. The Government intends to award without discussions. If the Government decides that it is necessary to hold discussions, then a Competitive Range determination will be made based upon the ratings of each proposal against all evaluation criteria.

3. The Government may or may not establish a competitive range after evaluating all proposals. If discussions are to be conducted, a competitive range will be established prior to the commencement of discussions. Based on the ratings of each proposal against all evaluation criteria, the Contracting Officer may establish a competitive range comprised of the highest rated proposals, unless the range is further reduced for purposed of efficiency. To be considered for award, each offeror’s proposal shall at a minimum, across all factors, meet the requirements of the Statement of Work (SOW), shall indicate an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Additionally, to be considered for award the proposal’s strengths and weaknesses shall at a minimum be offsetting and have little or no impact on contract performance therefore indicating risk of unsuccessful performance will be no worse than moderate.

4. The Government reserves the right to make an award to other than the lowest priced Offeror or to other than Offeror with the highest technical score if the Contracting Officer determines that to do so would result in the best value to the Government. However, the Government will not make an award at a significantly higher overall price to achieve slightly superior technical and management features.

5. Security: A TOP SECRET facility clearance is required under this solicitation. Offerors shall address compliance with the DRAFT DD254 attached to the solicitation by providing the Government with its Cage Code identifying that the Offeror holds a TOP SECRET facility clearance. The Cage Code must belong to the Offeror (Prime). Prior to evaluating proposals, the Government will review each Offeror’s Cage Code to ensure compliance with the security requirement in the attached DD254. Offerors who “fail” to hold a TOP SECRET facility clearance as outlined in the attached Form DD254 of this solicitation will not be further considered for award. Offerors who hold a TOP SECRET facility clearance will “pass” this review and will be further considered for award.

6. Evaluation Factors: The Government will use the following evaluation factors to evaluate each proposal. Award will be made to the offeror proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors described below. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

A. Factor 1 – Technical & Management C. Factor 2 – Past Performance D. Factor 3 - Price

EVALUATION PROCEDURES.

FACTOR 1 – TECHNICAL & MANAGEMENT:

The technical and management rating evaluates the Offeror’s understanding of and approach to performing the Government’s requirements, and the extent to which the proposal demonstrates experience performing similar requirements. Factor 1 – Technical Capability will receive one of the ratings described Table 3, Technical Capability Ratings.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal to determine the extent to which it indicates an understanding of the requirements, provides a convincing rationale on how the proposed approach will meet or exceed the requirements, and demonstrates previous experience meeting similar requirements.

The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the Offeror’s demonstrated understanding, approach, and experience provide the Government with a high level of confidence of successful completion within the required schedule.

(U) The Government will utilize the combined technical/risk rating against each sub-factor and then weigh all sub-factors to determine the overall FACTOR 1 rating. Table 1 below outlines the ratings and their descriptions:

(U) Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

To support the Technical/Risk rating noted above, the Government shall use the following definitions in Table 2:

(U) Definitions of Strengths and Weaknesses

The Sub-Factors used to evaluate each proposal are as follows:

SUBFACTOR 1: TECHNICAL CAPABILTY

The Government will assess the depth and breadth of the Offeror’s overall knowledge of contract requirements, to include: staffing structure, Offeror’s approach to collaboration fostering working groups focused on delivering responses to cyber-peculiar legislative and budgetary inquiries, and strategic-level cyber initiatives.

SUBFACTOR 2: RESUME SAMPLING

The Government will assess the Offeror’s capability to provide sufficiently qualified team members and personnel to successfully execute the proposed solutions. The evaluation will focus on the depth and breadth of personnel qualifications (education, skills and experience) and recent relevant experience (within the past three years) as it relates to the specific requirements of the Statement of Work.

SUBFACTOR 3: PROJECT MANAGEMENT

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s draft Project Management Plan in terms of its ability to efficiently resource, manage, and control costs of contract requirements (i.e., obtain, allocate, monitor and control resources and costs for the entire life cycle of the contract).

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s and subcontractors’/team members’ proposed corporate mechanisms applicable to all employees (practices, policies, and procedures) that will be employed by the Prime Offeror and subcontractors/team members to recruit and retain a sufficient number of qualified personnel to ensure successful accomplishment of the proposed technical and management approaches throughout the life of the contract.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s ability to provide the following staffing mix and timeline: 1) all key personnel nominated within 5 days of award; 2) 100% of staff nominated within 10 days of award; 3) 95% of staffing level maintained throughout the contract in accordance with the staffing requirements of the SOW.

FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE:

The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the Offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The past performance evaluation considers each Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying services that meet the contract’s requirements. One performance confidence assessment rating is assigned for each Offeror after evaluating the Offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the contract requirements.

In conducting the past performance evaluation the Government may use data included by Offerors in their proposals, past performance questionnaires, as well as, past performance information obtained from other sources. Adverse past performance information will be evaluated and included as part of the confidence assessment.

There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation:

Recency. The first is to evaluate the recency of the offeror’s past performance. The two (2) contracts references must have both been performed since March 2016 for at least a period of 12 months to be considered recent. Recency is the time period during which past performance references are considered relevant, and is critical to establishing the relevancy of past performance information.

Relevancy. The second is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the Offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. In establishing what is relevant for the acquisition, consideration shall be given to those aspects of an offeror’s contract history that would give the greatest ability to measure whether the offeror will successfully satisfy the current requirement. Aspects of relevancy evaluation will include the following: similarity to SNOOK support services, complexity, and dollar value. In addition, the relevancy evaluation will include: contract value, related support services were accomplished to support a similar SNOOK mission and how it relates to the SNOOK SOW, and the capability to perform all task areas of the SNOOK SOW.

Each past performance submission will receive one of the past performance relevancy ratings found in Table 4.

With the 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 evaluation of the relevancy of the offeror’s past performance, the goverment shall assign a rating from Table 4 below:

Table 4: Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Quality. The third is to establish the overall quality of the offeror’s past performance from customers on how well the offeror performed those past contract. The quality evaluation will be based on the comments from the Past Performance Questionnaire’s (PPQs) submitted as well as the data provided in the Offeror’s proposal and data obtained from other sources. The Government will review all past performance information collected and determine the quality of the offeror’s performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate these into the performance confidence assessment. The past performance confidence assessment rating is based on the offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance.

The Government will review this past performance information and determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to performance confidence assessment. In conducting a performance confidence assessment, each offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings from Table 5 below.

Table 5: Performance Confidence Assessments

A significant achievement, problem or lack of relevant data in any element of the work can become an important consideration in the source selection process. A negative finding under any element may result in an adverse performance confidence assessment. Therefore, offerors are reminded to include all relevant past efforts, included demonstrated corrective actions, in their proposal. Offerors are cautioned that in conducting the past performance assessment, the Government may use data provided in the offeror’s proposal and data obtained from other sources. Since the Government may not necessarily contact all of the sources provided for the offerors, it is incumbent upon the offeror to explain the relevance of the data provided. Offerors are reminded that while the Government may elect to consider data obtained from other sources, the burden of proving good past performance rests with the offerors. If there is no relevant past performance, the offeror will be evaluated neither favorably nor unfavorably and such lack of relevant past performance will be considered an unknown risk.

(U) FACTOR 3 – COST:

(U) Price will be evaluated for price reasonableness in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(1) based on the total proposed price for the base period of performance and all option periods together. The determination that the total price is reasonable will be made by a comparison of other offers received. If only one offer is received, the determination may be based on a comparison to the Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE) or by any other reasonable basis. Under no circumstances shall this information and documentation be included elsewhere in the proposal.

Offerors shall provide:

(U) Offeror shall propose fully burdened labor rates for each contract year. In the format below

(U) Labor rates shall be rounded to two (2) decimal spaces. All cells other than the Labor Rate cells are locked. All formulas are provided and calculated. The excel sheet will automatically calculate the Extended Price by multiplying the Offeror’s proposed fully burdened labor rates by the number of FTEs by the number of hours illustrated (Rate x # FTEs x Hours).

(U) The Offeror’s total price shall be equal to the sum of the base period and option periods one through four.

Tab 1 – Overall Summary.

Tab 2 - Base Year Tab 3 - Option Year 1 Tab 4 - Option Year 2 Tab 5 - Option Year 3 Tab 6 - Option Year 4

(U) One FTE is defined as 1880 direct charge labor-hours per year. Any percentage of a FTE shall be calculated based upon the 1880 hours.

(U) Offerors shall specify rates as on-site for each labor category.

(U) The Offeror shall identify its team. Please identify each team member, contractual relationship, anticipated dollar amount, and the corresponding point of contact information inclusive of name, address, and phone numbers.

UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

SOURCE SELECTION CRITERIA FAR 2.101 AND 3.104