Section_M_Addendum_Evaluation_Factors.docx

HQ0147-13-R-0005

Section M, Addendum May 23, 2014

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

M-1. Evaluation Factors for Award

M-1.1 Introduction The Government will evaluate the Offerors proposals In Accordance With (IAW) the criteria specified in this section.

M-2.0 Basis for Award This is a competitive, best value, source selection that will be conducted in accordance with Defense FAR Supplement (DFARS) subpart 215.3. In using this best value approach, the Government seeks to award to an Offeror who gives the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) and the Defense Acquisition University’s (DAU) Learning Capabilities Integration Center (LCIC) the greatest confidence that it will best meet the Government’s requirements in an affordable manner. To arrive at a source selection decision, the Source Selection Authority (SSA) will integrate the source selection team’s evaluations of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below. While the Government source selection evaluation team and the SSA will strive for the maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by nature, is subjective, and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process. This may result in an award being made to a higher rated, higher priced Offeror where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the SSA reasonably determines that the technical superiority, and/or overall business approach, and/or superior past performance, of the higher priced Offeror outweighs the price difference.

The Government will select for award the most advantageous proposal representing the best value to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of technical, management, past performance, and cost/price.

The Government intends to award a single indefinite-delivery, indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contract resulting from this solicitation for the entire LADSS Program effort. The IDIQ contract will have a base Ordering Period of five years. Task Orders (TOs) will be placed as funds and efforts are identified. TOs may be incrementally funded. The Period of Performance (PoP) for each TO will be determined at TO award.

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR subpart 15.306(a)). Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a cost/ price, technical, and management standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. If the Contracting Officer 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 Contracting Officer 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.

M-3.0 Evaluation Factors and Subfactors The SSA will select the proposal considered the best value to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below. The Technical Evaluation Factor is more important than the Past Performance Evaluation Factor, which is more important than the Management Factor. The Technical Subfactor 1 is more important than Technical Subfactor 2 which is more important than Subfactor 3. The Management Subfactors 1 through 3 are in descending order of importance. Color and risk ratings will be assigned at the Technical and Management subfactor level. Past Performance will receive a performance confidence assessment rating. Cost/price will be evaluated for reasonableness and realism and will be considered as part of the integrated assessment of best value. The non-cost factors, when combined, are significantly more important than cost/price, but cost/price will contribute substantially to the Source Selection decision.

Evaluation Methodology and Definitions. Each proposal will be evaluated against the solicitation and its stated evaluation factors and subfactors for award. The Government’s Technical and Management evaluation will focus on compliance with solicitation requirements and the proposal’s strengths, uncertainties, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies.

Table 1: Evaluation Definitions

M-3.1 Technical, Factor 1 and Management, Factor 2

Evaluation of these factors shall focus on the degree to which the proposed approach meets or does not meet the minimum performance or capability requirements through an assessment of the strengths, uncertainties, and deficiencies using the following color ratings. The Government will not roll up subfactor ratings into an overall color rating for Technical or Management. Note a deficiency (defined above) in the Offeror’s proposal could render the Offeror’s proposal unawardable. Also, see paragraph M-5.0 and M-6.0.

Table 2: Subfactor Color Ratings

*Clarifying definition of “exceptional approach and understanding”: Proposal describes an extraordinary approach that meets all requirements and identifies/acknowledges all major tasks to meet the requirements in great detail demonstrating a very comprehensive and in-depth understanding of the task complexity.

** Clarifying definition of “thorough approach and understanding”: Proposal describes an approach that meets all requirements and identifies/acknowledges all of the major tasks to meet the requirements with significant detail to demonstrate that it has a complete understanding of the task complexity.

Risk will be rated separately. Assessment of risk, which is manifested by the identification of weakness(es) and deficiencies, considers potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. Assessment of risk will be accomplished at the subfactor level and will not be rolled up to the factor level. Technical and Management risk will be evaluated using the following risk ratings:

Table 3: Subfactor Risk Ratings

M-3.2 Past Performance – Factor 3 The past performance evaluation will result in an assignment of a performance confidence assessment rating. The Offeror’s recent and relevant past performance will focus on performance that is relevant to the Technical and Management subfactors and Cost/price factor.

M-3.3 Cost/Price – Factor 4 The Cost/Price Factor will contribute substantially to the source selection decision. While cost/price will not be rated or color coded, it will be evaluated in terms of reasonableness and realism.

M-4.0 Competitive Range If discussions are to be conducted, the PCO shall, with the approval of the SSA, establish a competitive range based on the ratings of each proposal against all evaluation criteria. If the SSA determines that an Offeror’s proposal should not be included in the competitive range, the proposal will be eliminated from consideration for award and written notice of the decision will be provided to the unsuccessful Offeror in accordance with FAR subpart 15.503.

M-4.1 Discussions To maximize the Government’s ability to obtain the best value, based on the requirement and the evaluation factors set forth in this solicitation, it may be necessary to conduct discussions. Discussions may be conducted either orally or in writing. The scope and extent of the discussions are a matter of contracting officer judgment as set forth in FAR subpart 15.306. Offerors may be restricted to a short turnaround (less than 24 hours) in responding to the contracting officer. Offerors should present their very best proposal as their initial proposal. Offerors are strongly advised to thoroughly examine their proposals for accuracy, complete documentation, clear explanations and compliance with all requirements of the solicitation prior to submission to the contracting officer. If discussions are held, the Government does not plan to conduct successive rounds.

M-4.2 Final Proposal Revisions If discussions are conducted, final proposal revisions will be required in determining the award of the contract resulting from this solicitation. Offerors are advised that unsupported final proposal revisions may be penalized in the overall proposal evaluation, and an otherwise acceptable proposal could be placed in jeopardy. However, the Government reserves the right to award a contract without discussions or opportunity for proposal revisions, in which case, final proposal revisions will not be required.

M-4.3 Rejection of Unrealistic Offers The Government may reject any proposal that is determined to be unrealistic in terms of program commitments, including contract terms and conditions, or unrealistically high or low cost when compared to the Government estimate, 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-4.4 Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as factors and subfactors to be eligible for award. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the Offeror being removed from consideration for award.

M-5.0 FACTOR 1 - TECHNICAL

M-5.1 Technical Subfactor 1 – Technical Expertise

This subfactor primarily focuses on PWS Section 4.5, PWS Section 4.6 and PWS Section 4.7.

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s proposal clearly states and provides credible evidence that the Offeror’s team has the capability and an approach, including a risk evaluation, to execute Research, Analysis, Learning Asset Development, and Revision, Maintenance activities, to include:

1) Offeror’s written narrative demonstrates the knowledge, comprehension, and experience with Department of Defense (DoD) acquisition including the impact that current and emerging statutes, regulations, policies, and guidance have on DoD acquisition functional and topical areas.

M-5.2 Technical Subfactor 2 – Learning Asset Development and Sustainment

This subfactor primarily focuses on PWS Sections 1.1, PWS Section 4.5 and PWS Section 4.6.

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s proposal clearly states and provides credible evidence that the Offeror’s team has the capability and an approach, including a risk evaluation, to execute Learning Asset Development and Sustainment activities, including but not limited to Distance Learning courses (DL), Continuous Learning Modules (CLMs), Classroom courses (CR), Facilitated on-line courses (FOLE), Performance Learning Tools (PLTs) and gaming and simulation and the use of adult learning levels and use of innovative learning assets.

1) Offeror describes the process and approach to meet DAU learning asset development guidelines, processes and required standards (e.g. DAU e-learning and Curriculum Development guides). Offeror describes compliance with PWS security requirements, ADDIE process, varying adult learning levels, Section 508 and SCORM compliance.

2) Offeror describes their experiences with or the ability to obtain knowledge of and use of the following DAU learning development tools and learning management systems (LMS) to ensure deliverables can be integrated and usable:

3) The offeror’s sample maintenance plan describes an approach which allows DAU to maintain and sustain learning assets as required by individual Task Orders. The offeror should document a cost-effective approach to maintaining and sustaining those learning assets over time.

4) The Offeror’s sample Course Design Document (CDD) for a learning asset includes gaming and/or simulation and demonstrates the capability to research, analyze, develop and integrate new and existing content across DoD acquisition functional, cross-functional and topical areas, providing innovative, professional adult learning approaches. The sample learning asset CDD shall also be reflective of the offeror’s learning asset maintenance and sustainment approach over time to include affordability and obsolescence. The CDD will be evaluated to assist the Government’s understanding of the Offeror’s capability in meeting PWS Sections 1.1, PWS Section 4.5 and PWS Section 4.6.

M-5.3 Technical Subfactor 3 – Project Planning and Technical Approach

This subfactor primarily focuses on the PWS for Task Order 0001

The Government will evaluate the extent the Offeror’s proposal includes a Task Order Management Plan (TOMP) that clearly states and provides credible evidence that the Offeror’s Team has the capability to effectively plan and execute the elements of Task Order 0001 to include cost, schedule, performance, resourcing and risk.

M-6.0 FACTOR 2 - MANAGEMENT

M-6.1 Management Subfactor 1 – Teaming and Staffing

This subfactor primarily focuses on PWS Section 1.2; PWS Section 1.3; PWS Section 4.2.

The Government will evaluate the extent the Offeror’s proposal clearly identifies a Team and framework, including subcontractors and other subject matter experts, necessary to successfully execute the DAU LCIC Learning Asset Development, Sustainment and Support (LADSS) PWS. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror clearly demonstrates their ability to obtain, retain, organize and use resources effectively and efficiently in the following areas:

1) A planned process to organize, staff, and allocate resources to meet the PWS in a timely manner. The Offeror’s process details formal teaming partners, roles, lines of authority, management and technical communication processes and quality control processes that address the DAU LCIC LADSS PWS as a whole.

2) Key positions within the organizational structure that can support the requirements of the PWS, including their planned responsibilities, and details their experience most applicable to the PWS. Only DoD experience will be considered.

3) SMEs and consultants available at contract award and includes an approach for recruitment and retention to ensure qualified and trained personnel are in place. Offeror demonstrates the ability to obtain subject matter experts and consultants with proven knowledge, experience, understanding and expertise to meet PWS and task order requirements.

M-6.2 Management Subfactor 2 - Management Approach

This subfactor primarily focuses on PWS Section1.2, PWS Section 1.3.2.

The Government will evaluate the extent the Offeror’s proposal clearly addresses and provides credible evidence that the Offeror’s team has the methodologies and capabilities to manage the contract and perform numerous task order execution efficiently and effectively, including the ability to identify, evaluate, manage and mitigate risks, in the following areas:

1) Offeror demonstrates a quality control program that ensures contract compliance and an approach to managing technical, cost, and schedule performance including identification of substandard performance and effective implementation of corrective actions. The Offeror’s proposal clearly describes how the contractor will maintain contract and task order management, oversight of technical, cost, schedule performance, execution and control of numerous task orders simultaneously.

2) Offeror demonstrates an integrated risk management system and an approach to identify prioritize, mitigate, and track program risks and root cause drivers. Offeror describes their approach to reduce time to market delivery of learning assets while meeting all task order and contract requirements.

3) The offeror’s proposal should provide credible evidence to the Government that the offeror will be able to successfully meet or exceed the performance standards in the QASP PWS Section 5.

M-6.3 Management Subfactor 3 - Small Business Participation and Commitment

The Government will evaluate small business participation and commitment as measured against the total contract value. Evaluation ratings for participation dollars will be based on the degree to which the proposed values attain the LADSS minimum goals listed in Section L, Table L-01. 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 demonstrated in their proposal. Offerors will also be evaluated to assess the number and expected benefits of proposed new, contract-specific small business initiatives and the extent to which Offerors have in place effective procedures to ensure proper flow-down of requirements, process management, and performance assessments of small business participation at lower tiers. A prime contractor shall be rated outstanding for this subfactor when proposed small business participation exceeds 50% of the total effort. If proposed small business participation does not exceed 50% of the work, prime contractors will be evaluated based on their other commitments.

M-7.0 FACTOR 3 - PAST PERFORMANCE

The Government will conduct an assessment of the Offeror’s, team members’, major and/or critical subcontractors’ and/or major and/or critical subsidiaries’ past performance. A major subcontractor/subsidiary is defined as one performing $3M or more each year of the basic contract period effort (excluding ODC and Travel). A critical subcontractor/ subsidiary is one whose performance on the awarded contract is such that if it fails, could significantly impact program success. A key subcontractor is defined as one that is a major or critical subcontractor/subsidiary. Past performance regarding predecessor companies or key subcontractors, and/or subsidiaries that will perform critical aspects of the requirement will be considered the same as past performance information of the principal Offeror.

The purpose of this assessment is to determine the Government’s confidence in the Offeror’s probability of successfully performing the required effort based on the demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements. Past performance is an integrated assessment of recency, relevancy, and quality. The Past Performance Evaluation Team will evaluate all contracts submitted by the Offerors in their Volume III Past Performance for recency, using the criteria in paragraph 7.1 below, and relevancy, using the Relevancy Criteria Definitions in paragraph 7.2. The Past Performance Evaluation Team will evaluate recent and relevant past performance history and each Offeror will receive a single Performance Confidence Assessment for the Past Performance Factor using the ratings described in the table provided in paragraph 7.4.

In conducting this assessment, the Government reserves the right to use past performance information provided by the Offeror, obtained from questionnaires tailored to the circumstances of this acquisition, and data obtained from other sources available to the Government, to include, but not be limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Fee Determining Officials; and the Defense Contract Management Agency.

M-7.1 Recency

The Government will only consider recent work, which is defined as work performed during the three-year period preceding the date of solicitation release. Note: If any part of the performance falls within the above timeframe, the contract in its entirety may be evaluated for past performance.

M-7.2 Relevancy

If the past performance information is recent, as defined in paragraph 7.1 above, the relevancy assessment will be conducted on past Offeror contracts. Relevancy as it pertains to past performance information is a measure of the extent of similarity between the service/support effort, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and subcontract/teaming or other comparable attributes of past performance examples and the solicitation requirements; and a measure of the likelihood that the past performance is an indicator of future performance. This area demonstrates the depth and breadth of relevant experience of the Offeror, including major or critical subcontractors and/or subsidiaries. Relevancy for the Offeror’s past contracts will be assigned in accordance with the definition outlined in the table below. The Past Performance Evaluation Team will conduct an in-depth review and evaluation of all performance data obtained to determine how closely the work performed under those efforts relates to the proposed effort. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the Offeror, major or critical subcontractors and/or subsidiaries whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. Higher relevancy will be assessed for contracts that are most similar to the effort, or portion of the effort.

Table 4: Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

M-7.3 Quality Assessment The quality assessment is an evaluation that determines how well the Offeror performed on past contracts. The Quality Assessment ratings are set forth in the past performance questionnaire. The Past Performance Evaluation Team will review this past performance information and determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to performance confidence assessment.

M-7.4 Performance Confidence Assessment

Based on an integrated assessment of recency, relevancy, and quality, the Past Performance Evaluation Team will then determine and assign a Performance Confidence Assessment for the Past Performance Factor. The Past Performance evaluation will be accomplished by reviewing the aspects of the Offeror’s past performance focusing on the Offeror’s history of providing its customers with a quality product/service on contracts of similar size, complexity and scope that was delivered within budget and on schedule. This rating will represent an overall assessment of Offeror’s past performance. Offerors without a record of recent and relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive an "Unknown Confidence (Neutral)" rating for the Past Performance Factor. A more recent and relevant record of favorable performance will result in a higher Performance Confidence Rating than a less recent and/or relevant record of favorable performance. A record of exceptional or very good performance will be considered more advantageous to the Government than a record of “Unknown Confidence (Neutral)”. In performing the past performance evaluation, each Offeror will be assigned one of the following confidence ratings:

Table 5: Performance Confidence Assessments

Substantial Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

M-7.5 Adverse Past Performance Adverse past performance information is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation aspect or verifiable unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system. When 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.

In accordance with FAR subpart 15.306(b)(1)(i), communications must be held with any Offeror whose adverse past performance information is the determining factor preventing it from being included in the competitive range, unless the Offeror has previously had the opportunity to comment on such information. Furthermore, the contracting officer must discuss adverse past performance with each Offeror still being considered for award. See FAR subpart 15.306.

M-8.0 FACTOR 4 – COST/PRICE

Price is a substantial factor in this source selection. However, the Source Selection Authority (SSA) may award the anticipated contract to a higher-rated, higher-priced affordable Offeror. This will be the case if the SSA, when considering the best value, determines that the technical superiority and/or overall business approach and/or superior past performance of the higher price Offeror outweighs the price difference.

M-8.1 Price Factor

The Price Factor will not receive a color rating. The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s price proposal using one or more of the techniques described in FAR subpart 15.404. Information in the proposal and information from other sources such as DCAA, DCMA, and information obtained by the past performance evaluation team may be considered under the cost factor.

M-8.2 Cost risk

The SSEB will evaluate proposals for cost risk. Proposed prices that are unreasonably high or unrealistically low create an unacceptable level of cost risk. Throughout the price factor evaluation, the SSEB will consider the cost risk in conjunction with price and cost analysis to verify that the proposed prices are affordable, reasonable and realistic.

Price analysis is the process of evaluating a proposed price without evaluating its separate cost elements and fee or profit.

Cost analysis is the evaluation of the separate cost elements and profit or fee in an offeror’s proposal to determine a fair and reasonable price and to determine cost realism. Cost realism is a type of cost analysis that focuses on evaluating specific elements of each offeror’s proposed cost estimate to determine whether the estimated proposed cost elements are realistic for the proposed work; reflect a clear understanding of the requirements; and are consistent with the unique methods of performance described in the offeror’s technical and management proposals.

M-8.3 Affordability

An affordable proposal does not force DAU to make unacceptable budget trade-offs. Any unaffordable proposal, including an otherwise superior proposal, may be eliminated from consideration for contract award by the SSA.

M-8.4 Reasonableness

As adequate price competition is anticipated, the SSEB will in general verify price reasonableness by comparison of competitively proposed prices. Therefore, offerors are not required to submit certified cost or pricing data. If after receipt of proposals, the PCO determines that adequate price competition does not exist, the Government will require certified cost or pricing data (see FAR subpart 15.406-2, Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data).

M-8.5 Cost Realism

The SSEB’s cost realism analysis will assess the direct and indirect rates used to develop all proposed Fully Burdened Labor Rates (FBLRs) and the likelihood that the proposed technical and management approach can successfully accomplish the TO 0001 PWS at the proposed price.

The result of cost realism analysis is a probable cost. The probable cost may differ from the proposed cost and will reflect the Government’s estimate of the cost that is most likely to result from the Offeror’s proposal. The SSEB will make the following adjustments to the proposed cost to arrive at the evaluated probable cost:

· Adjustments to hours and other resources based on the management and technical evaluation teams’ cost realism analysis of proposed resources.

· Adjustments to proposed direct and indirect rates/costs, to realistic levels.

The SSEB’s cost realism analysis will result in two probable cost assessments.

1. The first and most important probable cost assessment is the result of a thorough probable cost analysis of TO 0001.

2. The second probable cost assesses the realism of all proposed FBLRs for all labor categories for all five years of the anticipated contract’s ordering period. This second probable cost insures that FBLRs for all labor categories, in all years, are included in the price factor evaluation.

M-8.6 Cost Factor Evaluation Results

The SSEB will provide the following results of its analysis of the cost factor to the SSA for consideration in making the best value determination:

· Any cost issues that increase cost risk identified by price and cost analysis and cost risks resulting from ambiguities due to poor proposal quality.

· The following two evaluated proposed prices and two probable cost assessments in order of importance:

1. TO 0001’s proposed and probable cost, which sums up:

a. The proposed and the probable cost for CLIN 0001

b. The proposed fixed fee for CLIN 0001

c. The Material/ODC NTE amount for CLIN 0002

d. The Travel NTE amount for CLIN 0003

2. A notional representative evaluated proposed price and a probable cost. The notional representative evaluated proposed price and probable cost are the results of the following steps:

a. Prior to receipt of proposals the SSEB will establish a notional set of hours that represents the SSEB’s approximation of the potential quantity and skill mix of hours necessary to fulfill future TO requirements for the entire five years of the ordering period. The SSEB will list these hours on a matrix. This matrix will have one column for each of the five years, and one row for each labor category. The SSEB will use this notional set of hours to develop both the notional representative evaluated proposed price and a probable cost for all labor categories and years. This matrix will be used for evaluation purposes only and will not be shared with offerors.

b. The SSEB will then multiply this matrix of notional hours by the matrix of proposed FBLRs as proposed by the offeror on pricing Exhibit B4. The sum of this multiplication is the notional representative total proposed estimated cost for all five years of the anticipated contract’s ordering period. Lastly, the SSEB will add fee using the same fee rate proposed on TO 0001 to arrive at a notional representative proposed price for comparison and evaluation purposes only.

c. Next, the SSEB will develop a probable cost for each FBLR. When necessary, the SSEB will use its judgment to adjust unrealistic cost elements to a realistic level and then calculate the resulting adjusted probable cost FBLR. The SSEB will then multiply the matrix of notional hours by a matrix of adjusted probable cost FBLRs. The sum of this multiplication is the total probable cost for all five years of the anticipated contract’s ordering period. Finally, the SSEB will add fee using the same fee amount developed in step b above to arrive at a notional representative evaluated probable cost for comparison and selection purposes only.

DRAFT

Source Selection Information SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.104