Amendment_0004_m2P1_Section_M.pdf

Revised Per Amendment 0004 dated August 22, 2016

Attachment M-1

Evaluation Factors for Award

M.1.0 Source Selection

M.1.1 General

M.1.1.1 Solicitation Requirements, Terms, and Conditions. Offerors’ proposals shall sufficiently address the PWS. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the Offeror being ineligible for award.

M.1.1.2 Basis for Contract Award. This is a best value tradeoff source selection conducted IAW 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://www.ditco.disa.mil/hq/aqinfo.asp and http://farsite.hill.af.mil. The technical proposal should include all information the Offeror wants the Government to consider regarding its company's ability to perform all required tasks and conform to all required terms and conditions. The proposal should address all aspects of the PWS, making special note of the evaluation factors in Section M.2 below. The stated qualifying factor listed in Section M.2.1.1 will be evaluated first to determine acceptability of the proposal. If determined to be acceptable the proposal will be evaluated further; if not determined to be acceptable, the proposal will not be further evaluated. The subfactors identified in Section M.2.1.2 will be evaluated as part of the best value trade off determination.

The Offeror shall submit its proposal via electronic submission, IAW Section L.

Contract may be awarded to the Offeror who is deemed responsible IAW the FAR, as supplemented. The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation (described below).

M.1.1.3 Number of Contracts to be Awarded The Government intends to award a single Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) contract, but reserves the right to make no award at all.

M.1.1.4 Evaluation The Government will evaluate proposals IAW paragraph M.2 below.

M.1.1.5 Evaluation of Options The Government will evaluate proposals for award purposes by adding the total price for the base period and all option periods. The Government may determine that a proposal is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s). The Offeror shall propose http://www.ditco.disa.mil/hq/aqinfo.asp http://farsite.hill.af.mil/ unit prices for the three year base period and five 1-year options. All unit prices will be entered into the provided pricing spreadsheet at Section J, Attachment J-3 entitled m2P1Cost Model.

M.1.1.6 Clarifications and Communications Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal. Communication conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions and the KO reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.

M.1.1.7 Notice of Award A written notice of award or acceptance of a proposal mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful Offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party.

M.2.0 Evaluation Qualifying Criteria, Factors and Subfactors

(1) The following qualifying criteria and evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal: Award will be made to the Offeror whose proposal is the most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of these criteria:

Qualifying Criteria Rating

Factor 1: Technical/Management

Subfactor 1: DoD Level 5 PA Subfactor 2: Initial Operating Capability (IOC) Subfactor 3: Business Management Subfactor 4: Transition Support

Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Small Business Management

Factor 4: Cost/Price

(2) Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors. The relative importance of each factor and subfactor is as follows: The Technical/Management factor is more important than Past Performance and Small Business Management factors. (Note: the Past Performance factor must be rated acceptable in order for a proposal to be eligible for award.) Within the Technical/Management factor, the subfactors are of equal importance.

IAW FAR 15.304(e), all evaluation factors other than cost/price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost/price.

M.2.1 Qualifying Criteria Rating

All proposals will initially be evaluated to determine whether the Contractor’s proposals are acceptable in meeting the following qualifying criteria. Contractors shall meet this qualifying criteria in order to be determined to be acceptable.

Acceptable/unacceptable ratings are provided in Table M.1.

Qualifying Criteria: Offeror shall provide certification of a Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program (FedRAMP) Joint Authorization Board (JAB) Provisional Authorization (PA) at either the High or Moderate Systems level.

Certification must be current (Offeror’s company name is listed on the FedRAMP website having a JAB PA in IaaS or PaaS) and in effect at the time of initial Request For Proposal (RFP) submission. Offerors must notify the Government immediately if they no longer have a current certification at any time before award.

Table M.1 Qualifying Criteria Ratings Rating Description Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the qualifying criteria requirement of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the qualifying criteria requirement of the solicitation.

Only those Offerors that meet the qualifying criteria and determined to be acceptable will have their proposals further evaluated.

Note: Submissions from contractors with Agency FedRAMP Authorization or Cloud Service Provider (CSP) Packages will not be accepted. The Contracting Officer will verify Offeror status by visiting the FedRAMP site (https://www.fedramp.gov/marketplace/compliant-systems/).

M.2.2 Factor 1: Technical/Management Approach

M.2.2.1 Technical/Management Rating

The Government will evaluate the technical/management solution documentation for those Offerors’ proposals that met the compliance requirements in paragraph M.2.1. The technical/management evaluation provides for two distinct but related assessments: the technical/management rating and the technical/management risk rating.

(1) Technical/Management Rating. The technical/management rating provides an assessment of the Offeror’s capability to satisfy the Government’s requirements. Each technical/management subfactor will receive one of the color ratings described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, Technical Ratings, excerpted on Table M.2 below.

The technical 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 factor.

Table M.2 Technical Ratings https://www.fedramp.gov/marketplace/compliant-systems/

Color Rating Description BLUE Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths.

PURPLE Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength.

GREEN Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

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

RED Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable.

(2) Technical/Management Risk Rating. The Technical/Management Risk evaluation focuses on the weaknesses or 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 subfactors will receive one of the risk ratings described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, Technical Risk Ratings, excerpted in Table M.3 below. The technical risk ratings focus on the risks, i.e., weaknesses and significant weaknesses, of the Offeror’s proposed approach to each of the technical/management subfactors.

Table M.3. Technical Risk Ratings Rating Description Low Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have 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 Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may 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 Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which 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.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

Definitions: The following ratings terminology is applicable for Tables M.2 and M.3:

Strength - is 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.

Weakness - means a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Significant Weakness - in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Deficiency - is 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 - is 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 if the proposal remains in the competitive range it should generate the issuance of an Evaluation Notice (EN).

The ratings terminologies focus on the strengths, deficiencies, uncertainties, and weaknesses of the Offeror’s proposal.

The proposals shall be evaluated against the following subfactors:

Subfactor 1: DoD Level 5 PA- The Offeror shall provide an implementation plan with initial Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) showcasing the optimal methodology to operationalize the m2P1 capability. The plan should document the deltas between the approved JAB-PA solution architecture and the proposed m2P1 solution architecture, if any, and the timeframes for Offeror work to be performed in order to achieve a DoD PA Level 5 according to PWS section 6.1.14 within 9 months, e.g., equipment delivery, configurations, management hardware delivery timeframes, infrastructure software implementation, etc. The Offeror will also annotate all known DISA constraints/dependencies. The Offeror will be evaluated on the implementation plan and timeline to obtaining DoD Level 5 PA for the proposed solution.

Subfactor 2: Initial Operational Capability (IOC) - The Offeror’s proposal shall highlight how the technical architecture meets or exceeds the key performance parameters (KPPs) and Service Level Agreements (SLAs) outlined in PWS section

6.1.10.1 sub elements 1, 3, and 4 for Initial Operating Capability (IOC) within nine months:

(1) Sub element 1: Identify how the infrastructure will maintain an overall availability for the consumers to a target of 99.500%, expressed as a percentage to 5 significant digits.

(2) Sub element 3: Describe how the solution will provide a Guaranteed IOPS or throughput levels for each tier of storage offered including a minimum 500 IOPS for Tier 1 and 40 sustained IOPS for Tier 2.

(3) Sub element 4: Describe how the solution will provide vCPUs with a minimum of 2.0 GHz as the standard performance level.

Subfactor 3: Business Management - The Offeror will highlight how their performance and resource usage tools meet or exceed the minimum requirement, outlined in PWS section 6.1.11.3 sub element 2:

The proposed solution will provide visibility into usage metering using metrics and granularity appropriate to the type of service. At a minimum all billable elements must be individually tracked and reported. Metrics must be current within 24 hours, and must be reported in the same time increments as the metering units.

Subfactor 4: Transition Support - The Offeror will provide a detailed technical approach to include estimated labor categories (per Attachment J-5) and hours that addresses the Transition Support tasks in Attachment J-6. Each task response should include a timeline that demonstrates performance within the 30 day requirement specified in PWS section 6.4.1.1 (11). The Offeror will be evaluated on how their technical response to each Transition Support task in Attachment J-6 meets or exceeds the schedule requirement in PWS Section 6.4.1.1 (11), and provides appropriate support labor and recommended hardware configuration in the technical approach for each task.

M.2.3 Factor 2 - Past Performance

M.2.3.1 Past Performance will be rated on an “acceptable” or “unacceptable” basis using the ratings in Table M.4.

(a) The past performance evaluation is an assessment of the Offeror’s probability of meeting the PWS requirements. This assessment is based on the Offeror’s record of relevant and recent past performance information that pertain to the products and/or services outlined in the solicitation requirements.

NOTE: In the case of a Contractor without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or “neutral”) past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered “acceptable.”

Table M.4 Past Performance Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method Adjectival Rating Description Acceptable Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the

Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the Offeror’s performance record is unknown. (See note in M.2.3.1(a) above)

Unacceptable Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

(b) Sources of Past Performance Information for Evaluation

Sources are as follows:

1. Past performance information provided by the Offeror in Volume III.

2. Past performance information obtained using the completed questionnaires, Attachment L-3.

3. Past performance information may also be utilized from established systems such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; and may be obtained from other sources available to the Government, such as the Defense Contract Management Agency; and interviews with Program Managers, KOs.

M.2.3.2 Recency and Relevancy. The past performance references submitted must adhere to the recency and relevancy definitions below to be considered acceptable.

a. Recency. 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 three years from the original date of issuance of this solicitation. Ongoing efforts must have been in place at least nine months before the proposal due date. Past performance information that fails the recency condition will not be evaluated for relevancy or quality.

b. Relevancy. The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent past performance submissions. For each recent past performance reference reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will be assessed. Relevant past performance means providing evidence demonstrating experience with past contracts in provision of cloud services of similar size and scope. Table M.5 below describes the ratings to be used for the relevancy evaluation of each past performance reference.

Table M.5 Past Performance Relevancy Ratings Rating Definition Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities to successfully perform the required effort.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities to successfully perform the required effort.

M.2.3.3 Performance Quality Assessment. The Government will consider the performance quality of each recent and relevant effort (i.e., how well the contractor performed on the contracts). For each recent, relevant past performance citation reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed for acceptability or unacceptability. The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of the past performance questionnaire responses, PPIRS information, and/or interviews with Government customers. It may include interviews with DCMA officials or other sources known to the Government.

M.2.3.4 Assigning Ratings. As a result of the relevancy and performance quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, Offerors will receive an integrated past performance rating at the factor level. The Offeror will receive an overall “acceptable” or “unacceptable” rating for the Past Performance factor based on the recent, relevant and quality assessment ratings of all past performance references. As noted in Section M.2.2.1, in the context of acceptability/unacceptability, any “unknown” rating shall be considered “acceptable.” If the overall Past Performance Factor is found to be unacceptable at the time of award, the proposal will not be considered for award.

M.2.4. Small Business Participation Evaluation.

M.2.4.1 FACTOR 3 – Small Business Management

M.2.4 Small Business Participation Plan

1. Offerors shall submit a Small Business Participation Plan and address the following areas for evaluation:

(a) Initiatives to veteran owned small business;

(b) Quantitative degree to which small businesses including firms defined in FAR §19, will be used meet a minimum goal of 25% of subcontracts will be awarded to small business concerns; and

(c) Efforts to ensure that the small business goals will be met.

2. If other than a small businesses, Offerors shall also submit a Small Business

Subcontracting Plan in accordance with FAR 52.219-9, Alt II and DFARS 252.219-7003, Small Business Subcontracting Plan (DoD Contracts).

SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATIONAND SMALL BUSINESS

SUBCONTRACTING PLAN RATING

DESCRIPTION

Rating Definition

Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the small business objectives

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

Both plans must receive an acceptable rating using the scale above under this Factor in order to be eligible for award.

M.2.5 Factor 4 - Cost/Price

M.2.5.1 For award purposes, the Offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated based on the total evaluated price for the three year base period, all option periods, and the option pricing for the additional six-month period IAW FAR 52.217-8. FAR 52.217-8 authorizes the Government to require continued performance of any services within the limits and at the rates specified in the contract. The pricing proposal should include a separate line item for the additional six-month period IAW FAR 52.217-8. These prices shall be identical to the proposed pricing in the six months prior to expiration of the base period, or the final option period, if option periods are present. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

The Cost/Price volume will consist of the Government-provided Attachment J-3 Exhibit B-1 m2P1 Cost Model which should be utilized by the Offerors for pricing their proposals. With the exception of selected cells within the “B-Table” tab of Attachment J- 3 Exhibit B-1 m2P1 Cost Model, the cost model is protected by the Government and Offerors shall not unprotect, alter or add to the cost model in any manner not directed in the instructions.

Offerors should only provide unit pricing, unless otherwise noted, in the B-Table tab of Attachment J-3 Exhibit B-1 m2P1Cost Model for all of the Government provided SLINs.

Unit pricing provided in the B-Table tab will populate into the Evaluation Quantities tab.

Unit pricing for all Government provided SLINs will be included in the contract award.

For all m2P1 solutions, a complete standard solution to meet the requirements of the PWS and Proposal Format must be demonstrated using the Government provided SLINs.

Supporting pricing data shall be made available to the Government upon request.

Offerors should not include any technical data in Volume IV – Cost/Price, to include Attachment J-3 Cost Model, and any supplemental summaries. Technical data should only be included in Volume II of the Offeror’s proposal.

The Offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated based on the total evaluated price for the three year base period and the five 1-year option periods. Evaluation of the options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

The Offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated, using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404, in order to determine if it is reasonable and complete. Normally, price reasonableness is established through cost and price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404. For additional information see FAR 31.201-3. For a price to be complete, all solicitation requirements must be priced, figures correctly calculated and costs presented in an adequate format. The Government reserves the right, but is not obligated, to perform a price realism analysis. The Offeror shall provide a description of the details of each product proposed.

The Offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated based on the total evaluated price for the three year base period, all option periods, and the option pricing for the additional six-month period IAW FAR 52.217-8. Attachment J-3 depicts the aggressive growth schedule by year, including option years. The quantities are disclosed to the Offerors in Attachment J-3. Government provided evaluation quantities are for evaluation purposes only and shall not be considered guaranteed workloads. For pricing purposes, server and storage workload that is implemented each year is assumed to continue for the life of the contract including all option years. Government provided CLIN/SLINs are a part of total evaluated price. Any Offeror provided pricing for requirements beyond Government provided CLIN/SLIN Structure are not a part of total evaluated price.

The total evaluated price will consist of the following to include the base period, all option periods, and the optional pricing for the additional six-month period IAW

FAR 52.217-8:

-Offerors proposed pricing (recurring/non-recurring) in response to Attachment J-3 (B-table) Government provided CLIN/SLINs and Government provided evaluation quantities and proposed unit pricing.

-Offerors proposed pricing for fully burdened labor rates in response to the Labor Support (Labor Category rate table) and Government provided labor hours.

-Government provided plug number for Other Direct Costs (ODCs) listed in Attachment J-3.

M.3.0 Organizational and Consultant Conflict of Interest (OCCI)

The Government’s review of the Offeror’s OCCI Mitigation plan will consider whether the plan addresses: potential OCCI concerns; the Offeror’s approach for mitigating OCCI issues; the adequacy of its OCCI training and oversight programs; and the adequacy of its procedures. Additionally, the Offeror’s OCCI plan and/or mitigation strategy will be evaluated for compliance with all regulatory and statutory requirements, including FAR Subpart 9.5.

The above elements and the OCCI plan will be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis. An acceptable plan is one that addresses the items in the paragraph above and does not present any actual or perceived conflicts of interest that cannot be avoided or mitigated in accordance with FAR Subpart 9.5

M.4.0 Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation terms and conditions, representations and certifications. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award. The Government will allow Contractors to propose, with its solution, commercial license/terms and conditions that are customarily included within their commercial transactions, as specified in Section L.8.2.1. The Government will not entertain assumptions or exceptions with regard to the rest of the solicitation