HDTRA1-15-R-0022_-_Draft_Section_M.pdf

HDTRA1-15-R-0022

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

FAR 52.217-5 Evaluation of Options JUL 1990

M.1.0 EVALUATION PROCESS

M.1.1 EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS

The Government will evaluate fully, carefully and impartially all* responsive proposals received in response to this Request for Proposal (RFP) in accordance with the evaluation factors and sub factors outlined in Paragraph M.2.0.

*Reference Paragraph M.1.4 for discussion of rejection of unrealistic offers.

M.1.2 AWARD OF CONTRACT

The Government intends to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussions (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). Each Offeror should submit its best proposal as the opportunity to submit a revised proposal is not anticipated. Clarification requests, deficiencies identified, and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR), if any, will be considered in making the best value decision.

M.1.3 DISCUSSIONS/COMPETITIVE RANGE

While the Government intends to award without discussions, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer determines them to be necessary. If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions these discussions will be held with only those Offerors determined by the

Contracting Officer, with approval by the Source Selection Authority (SSA), to be in the competitive range. The Contracting Officer may determine that the number of most highly rated proposals that might otherwise be included in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted and may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals. In addition, the Contracting Officer may also eliminate from the competitive range Offerors originally determined to be in the competitive range based on results of written or oral discussions if those Offerors no longer have a reasonable chance of being selected for award.

M.1.4 REJECTION OF UNREALISTIC OFFERS

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

M.1.5 CORRECTION POTENTIAL OF PROPOSALS

The Government will consider throughout the evaluation the “correction potential” of any deficiency or proposal weakness. The judgment of such “correction potential” is within the sole

Draf t 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.

M.2.0 EVALUATION FACTORS

Three factors will be used in this evaluation:

Factor 1: Mission Capability

Sub factor 1A: Management Approach

Sub factor 1B: Technical Approach to IDIQ SOW and Sample Task Order

0001 SOW

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Price

M.2.1 RELATIVE ORDER OF IMPORTANCE

In making the best value decision, the SSA will consider the following order of importance:

In compliance with FAR 15.304(d), Sub factors 1A and 1B are equal in importance. Factor 1, Mission Capability and Factor 2, Past Performance are equal and when combined are more important than Factor 3, Price.

M.2.2 FACTOR 1: MISSION CAPABILITY

The mission capability team will review each Offeror’s proposal and assess the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies of the proposal in relation to the identified sub factors. Each sub factor within the mission capability factor will receive a technical rating. The technical rating reflects the degree to which the proposed approach meets or does not meet the minimum performance or capability requirements through the assessment of strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies and risks of a proposal. Sub factor ratings are not rolled-up into an overall color rating for the mission capability factor. Each sub factor will individually contribute to the overall assessment of the Offeror’s understanding of the complexity and scope of the program and the feasibility of the Offeror’s approach to satisfy the Government’s objective.

The following rating table will be utilized for sub factors 1A and 1B:

COLOR

RATING

RATING DEFINITION

BLUE OUTSTANDING Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

PURPLE GOOD Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

GREEN ACCEPTABLE Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

YELLOW MARGINAL Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

RED UNACCEPTABLE Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is un-awardable.

M.2.2.1 Sub factor 1A, Management Approach

Evaluation of this sub factor will be based on the Offeror’s ability to effectively and successfully manage the contract. This sub factor is met when the Offeror provides a thorough integrated, complete and effective approach to accomplish the overall program and contract objectives as stated in the IDIQ SOW with an acceptable level of risk. The elements identified in Paragraph

L.3.3.2, and responsiveness to Section 508 requirements (L2.13) will be considered in arriving at a rating but will not be separately rated.

The management approach shall include but is not limited to (not listed in rank order):

Executive Summary

Management of day-to-day operations

Recruitment, Retention, and Surge Support Plan

Transition approach (transition plan will be incorporated into contract)

Use of Teaming and subcontractors to fulfill mission requirements (structure, team member roles and responsibilities)

Approach to subcontract management

Offical Conflict of Interest (OCI) Mitigation

M.2.2.2 Sub factor 1B, Technical Approach to IDIQ SOW and Sample Task Order

0001 SOW

Evaluation of this sub factor will be based on the Offeror’s technical capabilities and proposed solution for sucessfully satisfying the overall program objectives, tasks, and deliverables identified in Paragraph L.3.3.3 with an acceptable level of risk. This sub factor is met when the

Offeror demonstrates a sound technical understanding of the complexities and scope of the technical aspects of the IDIQ contract and Sample Task Order 0001 SOW and provides a comprehensive approach to include proposed level of effort, labor mix, and experience and qualifications of key personnel identified.

M.2.3 FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE

This factor evaluates the Offeror’s relevant present and past work performance history to draw a

Performance Confidence Assessment of the Offeror’s ability to successfully perform as proposed.

There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation:

The first aspect is to evaluate the Offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the Offeror is to the effort required by this solicitation. In determining relevance, consideration will be given to projects similar to this solicitation in scope, magnitude, and complexity as detailed below:

Scope - each referenced effort will be compared to the requirements of this effort for providing security and counterintelligence support as described in the IDIQ SOW.

Magnitude - the cost/price per year of each referenced effort will be compared to the estimated price per year for this effort.

Complexities – each referenced effort will be compared to the requirements of this effort for providing security and counterintelligence support as described in the IDIQ SOW;

management of subcontractors; integration of task orders.

The Government may consider efforts performed for agencies of the federal, state, or local governments and commercial customers. The evaluation may also include review of efforts performed by other divisions, subcontractors, or teaming contractors, if such resources will be brought to bear or significantly influence the performance of the proposed effort. For subcontractors/teaming partners the relevancy determination will focus on the present and past performance work history as it relates to the specific scope of work the subcontractor/teaming partner is proposed to do for this effort. For the prime contractor, the relevancy determination will include comparison to the entire scope of effort for this solicitation regardless of whether the prime or a subcontractor is proposed to do the work.

The definitions of relevancy are as follows:

RATING DEFINITION

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat

Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the contractor performed on previous efforts. In making this determination, the Government reserves the right to use both data provided by the Offeror and data obtained from other sources. Where the relevant performance record indicates performance problems, the Government will consider the number and severity of the problems and the appropriateness and effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised). The Government may review more recent contracts or performance evaluations to ensure corrective actions have been implemented and to evaluate their effectiveness.

To arrive at an overall performance confidence assessment, the evaluation team will consider:

The combination of the relevancy and performance history of each reference

The context of present and past efforts (i.e. previous performance as prime contractor or subcontractor) in relation to the Offeror’s proposed role on this effort

The percentage of effort the prime and each subcontractor is contributing to the effort

The “whole picture” the individual references collectively provide

Offerors that do not possess a record of relevant performance or for whom information on present and past performance is not available will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably for

Past Performance. Such Offerors will receive a “Neutral” rating to signify an “Unknown” confidence rating for the Past Performance factor. A strong record of relevant performance will be considered more advantageous to the Government than a “Neutral/Unknown Confidence” rating. Relevant performance at the subcontractor level also will have a greater impact on the performance confidence assessment than no record of relevant performance. Likewise, more recent and more relevant performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence

Assessment than a less recent or less relevant effort. The less relevant a contract is determined to be, the less positive impact the performance associated with that contract will have on the overall performance confidence assessment.

Each Offeror will receive one of the ratings described below:

RATING DEFINITION

SUBSTANTIAL

CONFIDENCE

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

SATISFACTORY

CONFIDENCE

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

LIMITED

CONFIDENCE

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

NO CONFIDENCE Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

NEUTRAL/UNKNOWN

CONFIDENCE

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

M.2.4 FACTOR 3 – PRICE

The Government will not rate or score price but will evaluate each Offeror’s price proposal for reasonableness and completeness. The price proposal for Sample Task Order 0001 will serve as the basis for the price evaluation.

The Government will evaluate the reasonableness of the proposed price using one or more of the price analysis techniques defined in FAR 15.404. In evaluating reasonableness, the Government will determine if the Offeror’s proposed price, in nature and amount, does not exceed those which would be incurred by a prudent company in the conduct of competitive business.

The Government will evaluate the completeness of each Offeror’s price proposal by assessing whether the Offeror provided sufficient detail to fully support the offer and permit the

Government to evaluate the proposal thoroughly.

Please note that the labor category rates proposed for Task Order 0001 will be the rates utilized for the life of the IDIQ contract and on any subsequent task orders.

The Offeror shall complete a separate Excel Workbook using the IDIQ Labor Category Hourly

Rates (RFP, Attachment L-5). These rates will be incorporated into Section B of the contract and will be used for the life of the IDIQ contract and on any subsequent Task Orders.

M.3.0 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

M.3.1 BEST VALUE DECISION

The Government will select the best overall offer based on a comparative assessment of the proposals against all source selection criteria: Mission Capability (separately assessed through two sub factors), Past Performance, and Price. This is a Best Value source selection acquisition conducted in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and Defense FAR

Supplement (DFARS). The contract will be awarded to the Offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements (including 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 sub factors, to represent the best value to the Government, considering both price and non-price factors. This may result in an award to a higher-priced Offeror where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the SSA reasonably determines that the proposal represents the best value to the Government. 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.

M.3.2 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

In addition to the evaluation of the specific factors identified in M.2.0, the Government will consider compliance with the solicitation terms and conditions. These general considerations do not receive a color rating, but may be considered by the SSA in making the best value decision.

M.3.3 NUMBER OF CONTRACTS TO BE AWARDED

The Government anticipates awarding one IDIQ contract as a competitive 8(a) small business set-aside. The Government reserves the right to award one or no contracts. All Offerors’ proposals will be evaluated for a contract awarded under an 8(a) small business set-aside competition. The Government intends to award the sample task order as Task Order 0001 with the contract award.

END OF SECTION M