J-7_SECTION_M_Amend_002_track_changes_62317.pdf

HC1028-17-R-0015

ATTACHMENT J-7

SECTION M

AMEND 0002

SECTION M: 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 performance work statement (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 trade-off source selection, conducted in accordance with FAR 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the DFARS and the DARS. These regulations are available electronically at http://www.ditco.disa.mil/hq/aqinfo.asp and http://farsite.hill.af.mil.

M.1.1.3 Evaluation The technical proposal should include all information regarding the offeror's ability to perform all required tasks and conform to all required terms and conditions. The proposal shall address all aspects of the PWS, making special note of the evaluation factors in Section M.2, below. Additionally, the sub-factors identified in section M 2.1.12 will be evaluated as part of the best value trade off determination.

In order to be eligible for award, the offeror must meet all of the technical compliance requirements, and meet or exceed the evaluated criteria for the sub-factors identified.

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 Source Selection Authority will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation (described below).

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors.

However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions or seek clarifications if the SSA determines they are necessary. In the event issues pertaining to a proposed contract cannot be resolved to the KO’s satisfaction, the Government reserves the right to withdraw and cancel the proposed contract. In such event, offerors will be notified in writing. In the event a competitive range is established and the KO determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the KO may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition.

M.1.1.4 Number of Contracts to be Awarded The Government intends to award a total of two single-award ID/IQ contracts; one for each of the chipsets, X-86 and SPARC, but reserves the right to make no award at all.

http://www.ditco.disa.mil/hq/aqinfo.asp http://farsite.hill.af.mil/

M.1.1.5 Rejection of Offers The Government may reject any proposal that takes exception to the terms of the solicitation. Note that unreasonably high proposed prices, initially or subsequently, may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition.

M.1.1.6 Evaluation The Government will evaluate initial proposals, IAW paragraph M.2, below.

M.1.1.7 Evaluation of Options The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for the base period and all option periods, including option pricing for an additional 6-month period that may be authorized IAW FAR 52.217-8. See FAR 52.217-8, which authorizes the Government to require continued performance of any services within the limits and at the rates specified in the contract. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of option(s) shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s). The offeror shall propose unit prices for the five-year base period, the five 1-year options, and the six months for the extension of services available via FAR clause 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services. All unit prices will be entered into the provided pricing spreadsheets at Section J, Exhibit B-1, X-86 Cost Model and/or Exhibit B-1.

SPARC Cost Model. These prices shall be equal to the proposed pricing in the six months prior to expiration of the base period, or the last six months of the last exercised option period, if option periods are present. The total evaluated price will consist of the contractor’s proposed price for the base period, all option periods, the option pricing for the additional 6-month period. , M.1.1.8 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.1.1.9 Notice of Award A written notice of award or acceptance of a proposal 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.1.1.10 Competitive Advantage from Use of Government Furnished Property (GFP) The Government will eliminate any competitive advantage resulting from offeror’s proposed use of GFP as there will be no GFP offered from the existing processor contracts for use under award of this procurement.

M.2.0 Evaluation Factors and Sub-factors

(1) The following evaluation factors and sub-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:

Factor 1: Technical/Management

Sub-factor 1: Technical solution: X86 and SPARC Sub-factor 2: Technical solution: Virtualization Sub-factor 3: Transition Plan Sub-factor 4: Capacity Sub-factor 5: Integration/Interfaces Sub-factor 6: Performance/Availability Sub-factor 7: Technical Requirements and Architecture

Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Cost/Price Factor 4: Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) Plan Factor 5: Small Business Participation Plan

(2) Relative Importance of Factors and Sub-factors. The relative importance of each factor and sub-factor is as follows: All non-cost factors are of equal importance. Within the Technical/Management factor, sub-factors 1, 2, and 3 are of equal importance. Sub-factors 4, 5, 6, and 7 (evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis) will be evaluated to determine whether offeror proposals meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation. In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), when combined, all evaluation factors, other than cost/price (when combined) are approximately equal to cost/price.

M.2.1 Factor 1 - Technical/Management Approach

M.2.1.1 Technical/Management Rating The Government will evaluate the technical/management solution documentation in the offeror’s proposal against the evaluation criteria in Section M of the RFP.

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 represents the government’s assessment of the offeror’s capability to satisfy the Government’s technical processor requirements. Each technical/management sub-factor will receive one of the color ratings described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, paragraph 3.1.2.2.1, Table 2 – Technical/Management Ratings, excerpted below.

The 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 sub-factor requirements.

Sub-factor ratings shall not be rolled up into an overall color rating for the technical/management factor.

Table M.2. Technical/Management Ratings 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 un-awardable.

(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 sub-factors 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 sub-factors.

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 - 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 EN.

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

(3) The proposals shall be evaluated against the following sub-factors identified below. Sub-factor ratings will not be rolled up into an overall color rating for the Technical/Management factor:

The proposals shall be evaluated against the requirements listed within the following sub-factors as part of the best value trade off decision:

Sub-factor 1: Technical Solution: x-86 and SPARC - This sub-factor evaluates the offeror's ability to provide solutions that meet or exceed the technical requirements outlined by the Government in PWS 6.1.1.4 and 6.1.2;

Sub-factor 2: Virtualization – This sub-factor evaluates the offeror’s ability to provide solutions that meet or exceed the virtualization requirements outlined by the Government.

For this sub-factor there will be separate evaluation criteria for proposals with X-86 solutions and SPARC solutions;

a. For X-86 proposals: The evaluation will focus on the minimum technical requirements identified in PWS 6.1.6.2 and 6.1.7.

b. For SPARC proposals: The evaluation will focus on the minimum technical requirements identified in PWS 6.1.6.1 and 6.1.7.

Sub-factor 3: Transition Plan – This sub-factor evaluates the offeror’s ability to meet or exceed the contract management support requirements outlined by the Government in

PWS 6.11.1 – 6.11.2.

(4) Acceptable/Unacceptable ratings for Technical Sub-factors 4 - 7 will be based on the following definitions:

The proposals shall be evaluated against the requirements within the following sub-factors on an “acceptable” or “unacceptable” basis as described in Table M.4.

Sub-factor 4: Capacity - This sub-factor evaluates the offeror's ability to provide solutions that meet the technical requirements outlined by the Government in PWS 6.3.1 – 6.3.2;

Table M.4 Technical/Management Ratings

Acceptable Proposal/quotation clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal/quotation does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Sub-factor 5: Integration/Interfaces - This sub-factor evaluates the offeror's ability to provide solutions that meet the technical requirements outlined by the Government in PWS 6.4.3-6.4.4;

Sub-factor 6: Performance/Availability –This sub-factor evaluates the offeror’s ability to meet the contract management support requirements outlined by the Government in PWS

6.2.1 (deliver 99.95% availability per orderable system with options to deliver up to 99.999% availability per orderable system); 6.2.2; and 6.2.5.1.

Sub-factor 7: Technical Requirements and architecture- This sub-factor evaluates the offeror's ability to provide solutions that meet the technical requirements outlined by the Government in PWS 6.1.1.2 – 6.1.1.3; 6.1.6.4; and PWS Appendix 1, Characteristics CPU Capacity/Type, Memory Capacity, Disk I/O connections required, and LAN connections required – Operating Chipset Architecture/Operation System.

(5) Proof of Concept Demonstration.

If a proof of concept demonstration is required, ALL offerors in the competitive range for each chipset will be required to demonstrate their proposed solution to members of the SSET at the offeror's own demonstration location and at the offeror's own expense. The Proof of Concept Demonstration is designed to validate Sub-factors 1, 2, and 2 3 of the offeror's technical solution. Specific elements of Sub-factors 1, 2, and 2 3 to be validated will be determined by the Government and provided to offerors as part of a detailed test plan. Offerors will be notified if they are in the competitive range and if a POC is required. If a POC is required, the first POC demonstration will occur within 30 calendar days. A detailed test plan and any government-provided data required to be used in the demonstration will be provided to each offeror 14 calendar days prior to the demonstration. Offerors will be given one day to present their solution.

The POC will be rated separately as either acceptable or unacceptable (see Table M.5 below)

Table M.5 Proof of Concept Ratings Rating Description Acceptable Proof of Concept clearly meets the minimum requirements of the test plan Unacceptable Proof of Concept does not clearly meets the minimum requirements of the test plan

M.2.2 Factor 2 - Past Performance

M.2.2.1 Past Performance will be rated on an “acceptable” or “unacceptable” basis, using the ratings in Table M.6.

(a) The past performance evaluation is an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the minimum past performance solicitation 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.

(b) NOTE: In the case of an offeror without a record of recent and 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.6 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 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.

(c) 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 may also be utilized from established systems, such as PPIRS, Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System FAPIIS, Electronic Subcontracting Reporting System, 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, etc.

M.2.2.2 Recency and Relevancy The past performance references submitted must adhere to the recent and relevant 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 (3) _ years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. 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 performance information obtained. For each of the recent past performances reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will be assessed. Relevant past performance means providing evidence demonstrating experience with past contracts in capacity processor services of similar size and scope as related to Sub-factor 1 or Sub-factor 2: Technical Solution: X86 and SPARC. Table M.7, below, describes the ratings to be used for the relevant evaluation of each past performance reference for each proposal for the applicable chipset.

Table M.7 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 for the applicable chipset, as related to Sub-factor 1 or Sub-factor 2..

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 for the applicable chipset, as related to Sub-factor 1or Sub-factor 2.

M.2.2.4 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, the proposal will not be evaluated further and will not be considered at time of award.

M.2.3 Factor 3 - Cost/Price

M.2.3.1 For award purposes, the offeror’s firm-fixed price cost/price proposal will be evaluated, based upon the total evaluated price proposed for each proposal/chipset for the 5-year base period, the five 1-year option periods, and the 6-month option to extend, IAW FAR 52.271-8. The proposed unit pricing for the 6-month option to extend CLINs/SLINs will be equal to Option Year 5 unit pricing. Evaluation of the options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

The Government will calculate the total price, based upon the proposed monthly unit pricing and any provided Government plug numbers found in the B-Table tab of Exhibit B-1, X-86 Cost Model and/or B- 1, SPARC Cost Model for all of the Government-provided SLINs in each period. Unit pricing provided in the B-Table tab will populate into the Evaluation Quantities tab. The provided “B-Table” unit prices will be multiplied by the Government-provided ‘scenario’ evaluation quantities (as detailed in the Scenario tab of Exhibit B-1, X-86 Cost Model and/or B-1, SPARC Cost Model). This Scenario will be the Total Evaluated Price on the Cost model’s “Summary Sheet” tab. The Government-provided quantities of supplies and services specified in the Exhibit B-1, X-86 Cost Model and/or B-1, SPARC Cost Model are estimates only and shall not obligate the Government to exercise. Unit pricing for all Government-provided SLINs will be included in the contract award.

The offeror’s cost/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 a price to be complete, all solicitation requirements (i.e. CLIN/SLINs provided in the Exhibit B-1 cost models) must be priced, figures correctly calculated, and cost/price presented in an adequate format.

M.2.4 Factor 4 - Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) Plan The Government's review of the offeror's SCRM Plan will be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis. In order to be acceptable, an offeror shall demonstrate that they have visibility into their supply chain for critical components, understands the risks to that supply chain, and has implemented or plans to implement risk mitigations to counter those risks. The offeror shall plan for and implement countermeasures which mitigate threats and system vulnerabilities, including:

a. The application of supply chain risk management best practices, applied as appropriate to the development of the system. Supply chain risk management key practices may be found in the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Interagency Report 7622, Piloting Supply Chain Risk Management for Federal Information Systems, and the National Defense Industrial Association Guidebook, Engineering for System Assurance, which are both publicly available.

b. The enumeration of potential suppliers of critical components, as they are identified, including cost, schedule and performance information relevant for choice among alternates and planned selection for the purpose of engaging with the government to develop mutually-agreeable risk management plans for the suppliers to be solicited.

c. The processes to control access by foreign nationals to program information, including, but not limited to, system design information, DoD-unique technology, and software or hardware used to integrate commercial technology.

d. The processes and practices employed to ensure that genuine hardware, software and logic elements will be employed in the solution and that processes and requirements for genuine components are levied upon subcontractors.

e. The process used to protect unclassified DoD information in the development environment.

TABLE M.9 SCRM PLAN RATINGS

Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of Supply Chain

Risk Management with a proposed mitigation plan to accommodate possible risks.

Unacceptable Proposal does not indicate an adequate approach and understanding of Supply Chain Risk Management or does not include a proposed mitigation plan to accommodate possible risks.

M.3.02.5 Factor 5 – Small Business Participation The KO will evaluate the offeror’s Small Business Participation as Acceptable or Unacceptable based on the extent to which small businesses are specifically identified in the proposal and the extent of participation of small business in terms of the value of the total acquisition in accordance with Table M.8.

Table M.8 - SMALL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT RATING Rating Definition

Acceptable Proposal indicates an understanding of the small business objectives.

Unacceptable Proposal does not demonstrate an understanding of meeting the small business objectives.

M.2.5.1 3.1 Small Business Participation Plan In accordance with DFARS 215.304(c)(i), the contracting officer will evaluate the Small Business Participation Plan to determine if small business participation is maximized, where applicable. Offerors shall demonstrate the extent of their inclusion of small businesses in the performance of the contract, to include: small business, small disadvantaged business, women-owned small business, HUBZone business, veteran-owned small business, and service-disabled veteran-owned small business.

The contracting officer will evaluate whether the Small Business Participation Plan addresses the following areas:

(a) Percent or extent of inclusion of small business concerns, as defined in FAR Section 19;

(b) Efforts to ensure that the small business commitment will be met;

(c) Specific extent of commitment to small business firms (commitments for inclusion of small business via negotiated / signed agreements are desired through confirmation of small business status of the prime contractor/joint venture teaming arrangement

(d) Identification by name, type of business, products/services, estimated dollar value; estimated duration of work; and type of commitment.

M.3.0 Additional Requirement M.3.12 Small Business Subcontracting Plan If offeror is other than a small business, offeror shall submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan separately from its Small Business Participation Plan. The Contracting Officer will evaluate review the Small Business Subcontracting Plan in accordance with FAR Subpart 19.704, as supplemented by

DFARS 252.219-7003.

The Contracting Officer will evaluate review the Small Business Subcontracting Plan to determine whether it addresses the following:

(a) Proposed goals in terms of percent of the offeror’s propose pricing for the period of performance;

(b) Explanation regarding the basis for and efforts associated with establishing proposed dollars and percentages, including a breakout of first tier small business subcontracts; and

(c) Consistency with the commitments offered in the Small Business Participation Plan and Small Business

Subcontracting Plan.

M.4.03.2 OCCI

The Government’s review of the offeror’s OCCI Mitigation Plan will consider: the degree to which the offeror addresses OCCI concerns; the offeror’s approach for mitigating OCCI issues; the adequacy of its OCCI training and oversight programs; the adequacy of its procedures and whether or not the offeror’s OCCI plan and/or mitigation strategy complies 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 above and does not present any actual or perceived conflicts of interest.

M.5.0 Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) Plan The Government's review of the offeror's SCRM Plan will be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis. In order to be acceptable, an offeror shall demonstrate that they have visibility into their supply chain for critical components, understands the risks to that supply chain, and has implemented or plans to implement risk mitigations to counter those risks. The offeror shall plan for and implement countermeasures which mitigate threats and system vulnerabilities, including:

a. The application of supply chain risk management best practices, applied as appropriate to the development of the system. Supply chain risk management key practices may be found in the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Interagency Report 7622, Piloting Supply Chain Risk Management for Federal Information Systems, and the National Defense Industrial Association Guidebook, Engineering for System Assurance, which are both publicly available.

b. The enumeration of potential suppliers of critical components, as they are identified, including cost, schedule and performance information relevant for choice among alternates and planned selection for the purpose of engaging with the government to develop mutually-agreeable risk management plans for the suppliers to be solicited.

c. The processes to control access by foreign nationals to program information, including, but not limited to, system design information, DoD-unique technology, and software or hardware used to integrate commercial technology.

d. The processes and practices employed to ensure that genuine hardware, software and logic elements will be employed in the solution and that processes and requirements for genuine components are levied upon subcontractors.

e. The process used to protect unclassified DoD information in the development environment.

TABLE M.9 SCRM PLAN RATINGS

Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of Supply Chain

Risk Management with a proposed mitigation plan to accommodate possible risks.

Unacceptable Proposal does not indicate an adequate approach and understanding of Supply Chain Risk Management or does not include a proposed mitigation plan to accommodate possible risks.