RFP Attach 12 Section M - Evaluation Criteria 03 Jan 11.doc

Attachment 12 - Section M

SECTION M

Evaluation Factors for Award

M-I - Solicitation Provisions Incorporated by Reference

M.I 52.252-1 - SOLICITATION PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE (FEB 1998)

This solicitation incorporates one or more solicitation provisions by reference, with the same force and effect as if they were given in full text. Upon request, the Contracting Officer (CO) will make their full text available. The Offeror is cautioned that the listed provisions may include blocks that must be completed by the Offeror and submitted with its quotation or offer. In lieu of submitting the full text of those provisions, the Offeror may identify the provision by paragraph identifier and provide the appropriate information with its quotation or offer. Also, the full text of a solicitation provision may be accessed electronically at this address: http://farsite.hill.af.mil.

52.217-5 Evaluation of Options

JUL 1990

52.222-24 Preaward On-Site Equal Opportunity Compliance

FEB 1999

Evaluation

M.II - BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

This is a best value source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and the DISA Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DARS). These regulations are available electronically at http://farsite.hill.af.mil. The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of Technical/Management Approach, Past Performance, and Price. Contracts may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors, to represent the best value to the Government. The Government seeks to award to the offeror who gives the Government the greatest confidence that it will best meet, or exceed, the requirements. This may result in an award to a higher rated and/or higher priced offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, as long as the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the higher ranked Technical/Management Approach, overall business approach, and/or greater past performance of the higher price offeror outweighs the cost difference. The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation (described below). While the Government source selection evaluation team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

A.

The following conditions must be met in order to be eligible for award:

1.

The proposal must comply in all material respects with the requirements of the law, regulation and conditions set forth in the solicitation.

2.

The Offeror shall submit its proposal via electronic submission, in accordance with Section L.

3.

The proposal must meet all mandatory solicitation requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation).

4.

The Offeror must be determined responsible according to the standards of FAR Subpart 9.1.

5.

The successful Offeror must be actively registered in the Central Contractor Registration (CCR) in order to be eligible for award. Registration shall be accomplished via http://www.ccr.gov/.

6.

The offeror’s proposal is judged, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors to represent the best value to the Government.

B.

Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and in the format specified in the Instructions for Preparation of Offerors within the RFP. Offerors may be asked to further explain certain aspects of their proposal (for example, the relevance of past performance information) or respond to adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system. Communication conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions and the Contracting Officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.

C.

Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award a single fixed price, Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity contract, but reserves the right to make no award, depending on the quality of the proposals received and the availability of funds.

D.

Rejection of Unrealistic Offers

The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unrealistic in terms of program commitments, contract terms and conditions, or unrealistically high or low in price when compared to Government estimates, such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program.

E.

Correction Potential of Proposals

The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential" of any deficiency or uncertainty. The judgment of such "correction potential" is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of an offeror's proposal does not meet the Government's requirements and is not considered correctable, the offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range.

F.

Competitive Advantage from Use of GFP.

The Government will eliminate any competitive advantage resulting from an offeror's proposed use of Government-furnished property (GFP).

G.

Use of Non-Governmental Advisors. The Government intends to use Non-Government Advisors. These advisors will provide technical, engineering, policy, regulatory, and process support. Company names and company addresses of non-Government advisors are:

WareOnEarth 2457 Aviation Ave

Suite 200

North Charleston, SC 29406 GeoWireless 3125 Ashley Phosphate Road

Suite 110

North Charleston, SC 29418 Allsys 1604 Spring Hill Road

Suite 170

McLean, VA 22182 Kepler Research, Inc.

1530 Wilson Blvd.

Suite 600

Arlington, VA 22209

M.III - EVALUATION FACTORS

A.

Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

(1) The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal: Award will be made to the offeror proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon an assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors below.

Factor 1: Technical/Management Approach Subfactor 1: Transition Plan

Subfactor 2: Network Architecture and Security

Subfactor 3: Management

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Price

(2) Relative Importance. Technical/Management Approach (non-price factor 1) is more important than Past Performance (non-price factor 2). All Technical/Management Approach subfactors are equal. All components within a specific Technical/Management Approach subfactor are equal. When combined, the non-price factors are significantly more important than the Price Factor.

B.

Technical/Management Approach Factor

The Government will evaluate the relative quality of work that can be expected under each offeror’s proposed solution. It will assess the risks (i.e., weaknesses and significant weaknesses) of the offeror’s proposed approach. The following subfactors will be rated:

Table M-1

The transition plan should reflect:

a. A clear understanding of the DREN requirement.

b. Accurately reflect the time needed to accomplish the transition.

c. List Government and contractor resources required to transition.

d. Identify potential risks that need to be mitigated.

a. The network diagram and SDP diagram demonstrate the proposed backbone equipment, routers, switches, access points, access methods, protocols used, the equipment proposed to establish a terrestrial-based network, and the ability to support the currently established service delivery points.

b. The network architecture should demonstrate flexibility by how readily the design/architecture can be modified to accommodate service additions, changes in traffic volume/patterns, additions/ deletions of SDPs.

c. The solution proposed must also demonstrate the ability to meet the DoD information assurance requirements as stated in the performance work statement.

a. An effective resource management structure of key personnel and subcontractors.

b. Key personnel must be highly qualified and experienced with all aspects of the PWS to include evolving technologies.

c. An effective resource management must demonstrate the ability to maintain appropriate levels of qualified personnel throughout the life of the contract.

The Technical/Management Approach evaluation involves two distinct but related assessments: the Technical/Management Approach ratings and the Technical/Management Approach risk ratings.

(1) Technical/Management Approach Ratings. The Technical/Management Approach ratings involve an assessment of the offeror’s capability to perform the provisions of the Performance Based Work Statement and otherwise satisfy the Government’s requirements. Each Technical/Management Approach subfactor will receive one of the color ratings described in Table 1 – Technical/Management Ratings below.

The Technical/Management Approach ratings focus on the strengths, deficiencies, and uncertainties of the offeror's proposal. The color rating depicts how well the offeror’s proposal meets the Technical/Management subfactor requirements. Subfactor ratings shall not be rolled up into an overall color rating for the Technical/Management Approach factor.

Table M-2

TECHNICAL/MANAGEMENT APPROACH RATINGS

(2) Technical/Management Approach Risk Rating. The Technical/Management Approach Risk evaluation focuses on the weaknesses and significant weaknesses 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.

The Technical/Management Approach subfactors will receive one of the risk ratings described Table 2 – Technical/Management Approach Risk Ratings below. They focus on the risks, i.e., weaknesses and significant weaknesses, of the offeror’s proposed approach to each of the Technical/Management subfactors. For any weakness identified, the evaluation shall address the offeror's proposed mitigation and the degree to which that mitigation is likely to be acceptable.

Table M-3

TECHNICAL/MANAGEMENT APPROACH RISK RATINGS

C.

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 users’ needs based on a demonstrated record of performance, including cost and schedule. The evaluation will include an assessment of recency, relevance, and quality. A Performance Confidence Assessment is then assigned. The past performance evaluation considers the offeror’s demonstrated record of performance in providing products and services that meet users’ needs. Performance confidence 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 Technical/Management subfactors, The Government may consider past performance taken together in addition to an individual contract basis. The Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the offeror’s Past Performance proposal volume and information obtained from other sources, such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) or similar systems, Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources.

(1) Recency Assessment

An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past 3 years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

(2) Relevancy Assessment

The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the products provided/services performed under those contracts relate to the Technical/Management subfactors including their relative order of importance. For each of the recent past performances reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed for the Technical/Management subfactors (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this procurement may be considered). The Past Performance Information Sheets and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance. If a work effort is rated Not Relevant, the quality of performance will not be evaluated and the effort will not be considered further in making the Performance Confidence Assessment. The Government will use the following degrees of relevancy when assessing recent, relevant contracts:

Table M-4

a. Centralized management of communications via terrestrial circuits on that are geographically dispersed throughout CONUS and OCONUS. [NAS4]

b. Providing support for unanticipated growth (i.e. additional service delivery points that are not defined in the basic requirement). [NAS2]

c. Continuing to evolve the network as new technologies are developed. [NAS2, M2, M3]

d. Applying Department of Defense (DoD) IA requirements to commercial products. [NAS3]

e. Providing a policy and a process for addressing obsolescence (i.e. periodic technology updates for commercial hardware and software changes). [M3, M7]

f. Providing timely and responsive Customer Support for a large customer base (in excess of 50). [M4, M6, M7, M8]

g. Transition an existing network of 25 or more locations to offeror’s commercial backbone network. [T1-3]

h. Offeror’s ability to mitigate schedule conflicts due to local exchange carrier “last-mile” difficulties. [M4]

a. Centralized management of communications via terrestrial circuits on that are geographically dispersed throughout CONUS and OCONUS. [NAS4]

b. Providing support for unanticipated growth (i.e. additional service delivery points that are not defined in the basic requirement). (NAS2)

c. Continuing to evolve the network as new technologies are developed. [NAS2, M2, M3]

d. Applying Department of Defense (DoD) IA requirements to commercial products. [NAS3]

e. Providing a policy and a process for addressing obsolescence (i.e. periodic technology updates for commercial hardware and software changes). [M3, M7]

f. Providing timely and responsive Customer Support for a large customer base (in excess of 50). [M4, M6, M7, M8]

g. Transition an existing network of 25 or more locations to offeror’s commercial backbone network. [T1-3]

h. Offeror’s ability to mitigate schedule conflicts due to local exchange carrier “last-mile” difficulties. [M4]

a. Centralized management of communications via terrestrial circuits on that are geographically dispersed throughout CONUS and OCONUS. [NAS4]

b. Providing support for unanticipated growth (i.e. additional service delivery points that are not defined in the basic requirement). (NAS2)

c. Continuing to evolve the network as new technologies are developed. [NAS2, M2, M3]

d. Applying Department of Defense (DoD) IA requirements to commercial products. [NAS3]

e. Providing a policy and a process for addressing obsolescence (i.e. periodic technology updates for commercial hardware and software changes). [M3, M7]

f. Providing timely and responsive Customer Support for a large customer base (in excess of 50). [M4, M6, M7, M8]

g. Transition an existing network of 25 or more locations to offeror’s commercial backbone network. [T1-3]

h. Offeror’s ability to mitigate schedule conflicts due to local exchange carrier “last-mile” difficulties. [M4]

NOTE: The bracketed references at the end of the lettered text refer to specific questions on the Past Performance Questionnaire that relate to that text. For example for relevancy factor a. Centralized management of communications via terrestrial circuits on that are geographically dispersed throughout CONUS and OCONUS, the supporting past performance question is [NAS4], Network provides service to several endpoints that are geographically dispersed.

(3) Performance Quality Assessment

The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts. For each recent and relevant past performance citation reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed for the Technical/Management subfactors (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this procurement may be considered). The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of the Past Performance Questionnaire responses, PPIRS information, interviews with Government customers and fee determining officials, and if applicable, commercial clients. It may include interviews with DCMA officials or other sources known to the Government. Pursuant to FAR 15.305(a)(2)(v), the assessment will consider the extent to which the offeror’s evaluated past performance demonstrates compliance with subcontracting plan goals for small disadvantaged business (SDB) concerns, monetary targets for SDB participation, and notifications submitted under FAR 52.219-25, Small Disadvantaged Business Participation Program—Disadvantaged Status and Reporting. Pursuant to DFARS 215.305(a)(2), the assessment will also consider the extent to which the offeror’s evaluated past performance demonstrates compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns and FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, Subcontracting Management and price/schedule problems. The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problems, mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated. The Government will use the following quality levels when assessing recent, relevant efforts:

Table M-5

(4) Performance Confidence Assessment.

As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the Technical/Management subfactors, the resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance. Offerors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive an “Unknown Confidence” rating for the past performance factor.

More recent and relevant performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less recent or relevant effort. The past performance factor will receive one of the performance confidence assessment ratings described in Table M-6 – Performance Confidence Assessments below.

Table M-6

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

D.

Price Factor

1. The purpose of the price evaluation is to assess the relative price of each offeror’s proposal and the reasonableness of the proposed price in relationship to the technical and management proposal. The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404.

2. The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated, for award purposes, based upon the total price (base period and all options). Total price will be determined/evaluated by applying pricing model(s) to the applicable base and option years pricing data obtained from the offeror’s CLIN pricing spreadsheet. The pricing model(s) will include initial site transitions as well as site upgrades and new site additions over the life of the contract. The evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

a.

Labor rates will be evaluated in one-hour increments.

b.

Travel (CLIN 0800AM) is reserved for Government use for Government-directed travel if required. If Government-directed travel is required, those travel costs will be paid in accordance with FAR 31.205-46 and CLIN 0800AM will be activated. All travel necessary to provide services shall be included in the offeror’s proposal and will not be paid via this CLIN.

c.

Technical Insertion Proposals for upgrades/enhancements will not be included in the price model(s) to determine total price.

3. The offeror’s price proposal will also be evaluated to determine if it is reasonable, realistic, complete and balanced.

a.

Price reasonableness will be determined by adequate price competition. For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. If adequate price competition does not exist then other price analysis techniques will be used as described in FAR 15.404.

b.

Price realism will be assessed by comparing the proposed price with the proposed scope and effort. This will include an evaluation of the extent to which proposed prices are sufficient for the work to be performed, reflective of a clear understanding of the requirements, and consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the offeror’s Technical/Management proposal. The Price Realism Assessment will consider Technical/Management risks (weaknesses and significant weaknesses) identified during the evaluation of the proposal.

When the Government evaluates an offer as unrealistically low compared to the anticipated price of performance and the offeror fails to explain these underestimated prices, the Government will consider, under the proposal risk rating, the offeror’s lack of understanding of the Technical/Management requirements of the applicable Technical/Management Approach subfactor.

c.

Completeness will be evaluated by assessing the responsiveness of the offeror in providing price data for all solicitation requirements, calculating all figures correctly and presenting all prices in a clear and useful format. Failure to comply with this requirement may render a proposal as non-responsive, and thereby subject to rejection.

d.

Price balance will be assessed in accordance with FAR 15.404(g). The Government will consider the risks to the Government associated with unbalanced pricing in determining the competitive range and in making the source selection decision; and will consider whether award of the contract will result in paying unreasonably high prices for contract performance. An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

4. Price, while neither a weighted nor a color evaluated factor, will be an important evaluation consideration in selecting an offeror under this solicitation. A best value decision will be made after an integrated assessment of all the evaluation criteria.

E.

Discussions

If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision.

F.

Solicitation Requirements, Terms, and Conditions

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and Technical/Management requirements, in addition to those identified as factors or subfactors. 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 the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale.