Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award 24 Jun 20.docx

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104

SECTION M. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M1.0. SOURCE SELECTION

M1.1. General.

M1.1.1. Solicitation Requirements, Terms, and Conditions.

Offerors are required to address 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.

M1.1.2. Basis for Contract Award.

This is a best value trade off 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://www.ditco.disa.mil/hq/aqinfo.asp and http://acquisition.gov/dfars. The Government will select the best overall offeror, based on integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below.

M1.1.3. Evaluation.

The technical proposal should include all information the offeror wants the Government to consider and evaluate regarding the offeror’s ability to perform all required tasks and conform to all required terms and conditions. The best value determination will be based on the stated evaluation factors.

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 Contracting Officer (KO) 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.

M1.1.4. Evaluation of Options.

Pricing submitted for the base period and all option periods, including option pricing for an additional six-month period that may be authorized IAW FAR 52.217-8 "Option to Extend Services" will be evaluated. 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. 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. The total evaluated price will consist of the proposed price for the base period, all option periods, and the option pricing for the additional 6-month period. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

M1.1.5. Number of Contracts to be Awarded.

The Government intends to award one, single-award indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract for Global Content Delivery Services (GCDS) II; however, the Government reserves the right to make no award at all.

M1.1.6. Rejection of Offers.

The Government may reject any proposal that takes exception to the terms of the solicitation.

M2.0. EVALUATION FACTORS

M2.1. 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 integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below.

Factor 1: Technical/Management (Combined Technical/Risk Rating):

Subfactor 1: Transition Planning Subfactor 2: Global Content Delivery Service Solution Subfactor 3: Management: Service Delivery

Factor 2: Cost/Price Factor 3: Supply Chain Risk Management (Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating) Factor 4: Small Business Participation (Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating)

(2) Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors. The Technical/Management Factor, including all subfactors, is significantly more important than Supply Chain Risk Management and Small Business Participation factors. Within the Technical/Management Factor, the Subfactors are of equal importance. In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), all evaluation factors, when combined, other than cost/price, are significantly more important than cost/price.

M2.2. Technical/Management Factor.

The technical/management evaluation will be evaluated using a combined technical/management rating and risk rating.

The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings. Combined Technical/Risk evaluations shall utilize the combined technical/risk ratings listed in Table M1.

Color/adjectival ratings will be provided at the Subfactor level. Subfactor ratings will not be rolled into an overall technical/management factor rating.

Table M1. COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

M2.2.1 Subfactors:

Subfactor 1. Transition Planning. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s plan to ensure uninterrupted access to content delivery services.

1.1 Transition Implementation. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s ability to conduct a service transition plan to include the following: change management; service asset and configuration management; release and deployment management (timeline); service validation and testing; transition of all edge locations to the proposed contractor’s solutions, achieving full operating status; change evaluation and knowledge management. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s methodology for transitioning current GCDS solutions to Contractor provided capacity solution(s). (Reference PWS Section 6.11.1)

1.2 Transition Exit Strategy.

The Government will evaluate offeror’s ability to implement a transition exit strategy, which will, at a minimum, include: performance of any necessary de-installation and removal of hardware items upon request by the Government; provision of the draw down timeline for courses of action where the utility solution remains in place or utility solution is replaced by technology. In addition, the Government will evaluate the offeror’s transition exit strategy showing methodology for draw down and transition of all capabilities that support Content Delivery, Network Storage, and Video Streaming to a new vendor. (Reference PWS Section 6.11.2, Subtask 11.2.1)

Subfactor 2. Global Content Delivery Solution. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s approach to provide dynamically scalable content delivery service utilizing an on-demand service approach that will readily adjust to changes in content delivery requirements.

2.1 The offeror’s approach to ensure 24x7x365 and 99.999% availability in a scalable solution to include fault tolerance, automatic failover, redundancy, adverse network detection, load balancing, and content mirroring. (Reference PWS Section 6.20.2 and 6.20.3)

2.2 The offeror’s approach to provide live and on demand adaptive bit rate video streaming (Reference PWS Section 6.3.1).

Subfactor 3. Management: Service Delivery. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s ability to provide application support and real-time monitoring.

3.1 The offeror’s approach to provide solutions for application support and ensure the support of all application owners. (PWS Section 6.5.2)

3.2 The offeror’s approach to provide solutions for a near real-time monitoring tool. (PWS Section 6.5.3)

M2.3. Cost/Price Factor.

The offeror’s fixed price proposal will be evaluated for award purposes based upon the total evaluated price for the three-year base period; the three, one-year option periods; and the 6-month option to extend IAW FAR 52.217-8. The pricing for the 6-month option to extend CLINs will be equal to Option Year 3 unit pricing.

The Government is requesting unit pricing based on usage/events for CLINs x001-x005 and CLINs x007-x021. For these usage based CLINs, the Government is requesting tier pricing that is billed in accordance with the billing instructions identified in the each individual order.

The “Implementation” tier (CLINs x001, x007, x012, and x017) will serve as the baseline CLIN. As the number of units exceed that CLIN tier, the entire number of units will move to the next tier. For example, for CLINs x001-x005, if 450 URLs were used at the end of the month, 450 URLS would be billed against CLIN x001, GCDS Services HTTP(S) - Managed Services (Web Delivery) Implementation (0-500). If 550 URLs were used at the end of the month, 550 URLs would be billed against CLIN x002, GCDS Services HTTP(S) - Managed Services (Web Delivery) Tier 1 (501-1500).

CLIN x006 shall be priced on a monthly basis.

For evaluation purposes, the total evaluated price of the base contract will be calculated based upon the proposed unit pricing and any provided Government plug numbers found in the “Unit Price” tab of Exhibit B-1, GCDS II Price Model for all of the Government-provided CLINs in each period. Unit pricing provided in the “Unit Price” tab will populate into the “Evaluation Quantities” tab. The provided unit prices will be multiplied by the Government-provided evaluation quantities (as detailed in Exhibit B-1, GCDS II Price Model). The Government-provided quantities specified in the Exhibit B-1, GCDS II Price Model are estimates only, and they shall not obligate the Government to exercise. Unit pricing for all Government-provided CLINs will be included in the contract award. 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 a price to be complete, all solicitation requirements must be priced, figures correctly calculated and prices presented in a clear and useful format. If a CLIN is proposed at $0.00, the Government may order that CLIN for $0.00, at no cost to the Government. The Government will consider a SLIN with proposed price of $0.00 as complete. The Government will consider a CLIN that is left blank and does not include a price as incomplete. In addition, offeror generated abbreviations such as not separately priced (“NSP”), not applicable (“N/A”), and no charge (“N/C”) are not acceptable entries and the price proposal will be considered incomplete. Incomplete proposals will be ineligible for award.

The Government reserves the right, but is not obligated, to perform a price realism analysis. Additionally, unbalanced pricing poses an unacceptable risk to the Government and may be a reason to reject an offeror’s proposal.

It is anticipated that pricing will be based on adequate price competition; therefore, offerors are not required to submit certified cost or pricing data. However, data other than cost or pricing data may be required to support price reasonableness in accordance with FAR 15.403-1(b) and 15.403-3(a).

Travel/Other Direct Costs (ODC): Due to the probable inability of any offeror to accurately estimate travel, material/equipment purchases, etc. associated with this requirement, the Government is providing plug numbers, inclusive of all direct costs and indirect rate burdens, to be used by all Offerors when proposing Travel and ODCs. The Government will verify plug numbers are utilized as directed and amounts appropriately included in proposed pricing. Plug numbers are provided in the Price Template. Travel shall be authorized by the Contracting Officer Representative (COR) in writing prior to performance and will be paid IAW FAR Part 31.205-46. No profit or fee will be authorized for travel. Applicable burdens, e.g., G&A, may apply to travel IAW the contractor’s accounting practices.

Base Year 1: $5,000 Base Year 2: $5,000 Base Year 3: $5,000 Option Year 1: $5,000 Option Year 2: $5,000 Option Year 3: $5,000

Emerging Technologies: The Government may require Emerging Technologies as defined in PWS 6.23 during the base period or any option period. The Emerging Technologies are solution-based tasks that can be added to the contract as requirements develop. These tasks/service solution offerings are within scope, and are a general progression of the growing GCDS platform/portfolio of services. The Contractor shall provide solutions for the associated emerging GCDS technologies. Emerging Technologies is OPTIONAL and is not a guarantee. If the Government determines that an Emerging Technology is required, the contracting officer will provide written notice to the contractor requesting a proposal for the specific task. The Government is providing a plug number to be used by all contractors when proposing Emerging Technologies. Emerging Technologies will not exceed the plug numbers identified for each year of the base period and each option year. The Emerging Technologies CLIN shall not be exercised in the 6-month extension of services pursuant to FAR 52.217-8. Contractors are instructed to propose the EXACT plug numbers for Emerging Technologies CLIN x0023. In the event the Government does elect to exercise the Emerging Technologies CLIN, the resultant Emerging Technology task will be realigned under existing CLINs for the relevant task areas identified in the PWS, and an equal amount will be deducted from optional Emerging Technologies CLIN x0023. Each resultant Emerging Technology CLIN will be Cost Reimbursable. The Government will evaluate proposals submitted under the Emerging Technologies CLIN for fair and reasonableness at the time of submission.

The EXACT plug numbers offers shall proposal under the Emerging Technologies CLIN x0023 are as follows:

Base Year 1: $7,000,000.00 Base Year 2: $7,500,000.00 Base Year 3: $8,000,000.00 Option Year 1: $8,000,000.00 Option Year 2: $8,500,000.00 Option Year 3: $9,000,000.00

M2.4. 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. In addition, the offeror shall provide a 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, 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 M4. SCRM PLAN RATINGS

M2.5. Small Business Participation Factor.

The Government will evaluate small business participation and commitment for acceptability of goals proposed against the minimum goals provided in Section L7.0. As part of this evaluation, the Government will consider each Offeror's commitment to use small businesses in terms of the type of work to be performed, the extent to which specific companies are named in the proposal and whether documented commitments are included in their proposal. The Government will use the following pass/fail rating for the Utilization of Small Business Factor:

Table M5. SMALL BUSINESS RATING

The Government will assess the Offerors’ submissions to this factor for acceptability of the proposed Small Business Participation Plan. To be acceptable, the Offeror shall:

· Provide a complete and responsive small business participation plan that includes all of the elements listed in the provided template.

· The plan must show consideration for all federally designated small business categories and must meet the minimums listed in Section L7.0.

· If the Offeror does not meet or exceed all minimum objectives provided, the Offeror shall:

· Provide a detailed explanation of why the Offeror does not meet the small business participation minimum objectives listed within Section L8.0

· Provide a detailed explanation of why the Offeror cannot meet the minimum objectives

· Describe what the Offeror has done to try to meet the minimum objectives

· Respond to why the Government should accept their plan.

· If the Offeror submits zero percentages in any category, the Offeror shall also:

· Provide a detailed explanation to address how the Offeror will achieve small business participation where zero percentages are presented.

These explanations must be reasonable and the determination of an acceptable response will be determined by the Government.

FOR OFFICAL USE ONLY

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104