Section_M_-_IT_Cybersecurity_ _Risk_Management.docx.pdf

TEAMS IT Cybersecurity & Risk Management

HQ0147-16-R-0005

SECTION M: EVALUATION CRITERIA

SECTION M: EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M-1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Government will evaluate the offerors’ proposals in accordance with (IAW) the criteria specified in this section. The Government may award without discussions. Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms for each factor/subfactor. The

Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. Evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

M-2.0 BASIS FOR AWARD

M-2.1 Best Value Tradeoff

This is a best-value, competitive source selection conducted IAW the Federal Acquisition

Regulation (FAR) subpart 15.3, as supplemented by the Defense FAR Supplement (DFARS) subpart 215.3 and MDA Manual 5013.06-M, Source Selection Procedures. To be eligible for award, the offeror must be deemed responsible in accordance with FAR 9.1; meet the requirements of the solicitation; conform to the required terms and conditions; and, include all required certifications. An offeror may submit more than one proposal but no more than two;

however, Alternate Proposals – defined herein as proposals that deviate in any way from the solicitation terms and conditions and/or the stated performance requirement – will not be considered. Contingent proposals are not allowed, nor will they be accepted, considered or evaluated by the Government. Contingent proposals are defined herein as proposals that include terms or conditions that imply that performance is contingent upon any sort of provisioning from the Government that is not set forth in the RFP.

M-2.2 The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unrealistic, including contract terms and conditions, program commitments, unrealistically high or low cost when compared to the Independent Government Estimate, or a proposal that is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of understanding/competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of all stated requirements.

M-2.3 If discussions are required, a competitive range determination will be utilized IAW FAR

15.306. Offerors are hereby notified that IAW FAR 15.306(c) (2), the PCO may limit the number of the most highly rated proposals to a number at which an efficient competition can be conducted.

M-2.4 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 offeror’s Security Plan, Small Business Plan, and

Transition Plan factors will be evaluated as Acceptable or Unacceptable.

M-2.5 Award may be made to a higher rated, higher priced offeror where the SSA reasonably determines that the technical and/or management superiority of the higher priced offeror outweighs the price differential. The selection decision will document tradeoffs between

Technical, Management, Past Performance, and Cost/Price for offers with “Acceptable” approaches to Security, Transition, and Small Business.

M-2.6 Discussions

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the

PCO later determines them to be necessary. If the PCO 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 PCO 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.

If discussions are required, they may be conducted either orally or in writing. The scope and extent of the discussions are a matter of PCO judgment as set forth in FAR 15.306. Offerors may be restricted to a short turnaround within 2 business days in responding to the PCO.

Should the Government need to conduct written exchanges with offerors, they will be in the form of an Evaluation Notice (EN). Page format and limitations will be placed on responses to ENs in the event they are issued. The specified page limits for EN responses will be identified in the letters forwarding the ENs to the offerors. ENs may be sent electronically (i.e., via e-mail) at the discretion of the contracting officer. The EN will request an e-mail or a hardcopy response. If a hardcopy response is requested, the EN responses shall be submitted on a light colored paper to distinguish between the original and clarifications. Specific paper color requirement will be identified in the EN instruction(s).

M-2.7 Competitive Range

If discussions are conducted, the PCO will establish a competitive range based on the ratings of each proposal against all evaluation criteria. If the PCO 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 15.503, whereupon they may request and receive a debriefing in accordance with FAR 15.505 and 15.506, respectively.

M-2.8 Final Proposal Revisions

Final proposal revisions will be requested when discussions have been conducted. 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. Any changes to or non-concurrence with contract terms and conditions submitted in the final proposal revision will not be subject to further discussion or negotiation and may render the offer unacceptable to the

Government. This provision is not intended to restrict the offeror’s opportunity to revise figures

(e.g., prices, discounts, percentage rates, etc.). Rather, it is intended to preclude any misunderstandings by the Government, which could result if new or revised terms and conditions are submitted in the final proposal revision that have not been fully disclosed, discussed and understood during discussions or negotiations. Hence, such new or revised terms and conditions are not solicited and, if submitted in the final proposal revision, may render the offer unacceptable to the Government.

M-2.9 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.

TABLE M-1: ACCEPTABLE/UNACCEPTABLE FACTORS

Acceptable/Unacceptable Factors

Factor F1: Security Plan

Factor F2: Small Business

Factor F3: Transition Plan

Factors F1 and F3 will be evaluated on an “Acceptable/Unacceptable” basis using the ratings at

Table M-2. Factor F2 will be evaluated on an “Acceptable/Unacceptable” basis using the ratings at Table M-4. There is no order of relative importance for these Factors.

TABLE M-2: Acceptable/Unacceptable Definitions Rating Definition

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

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

TABLE M-3: EVALUATION FACTORS/SUBFACTORS

Evaluation Factors

Factor F4: Past Performance

Factor F5: Technical

Technical Subfactor 1 (TS1): Connecting Laboratories Whitepaper

Technical Subfactor 2 (TS2): Test Plan Whitepaper

Technical Subfactor 3 (TS3): Architecture Integration Concept Whitepaper

Factor F6: Management

Management Subfactor 1 (MS1): Workforce Management Approach

Management Subfactor 2 (MS2): Contract Management Approach

Factor F7: Cost/Price

Technical Subfactors TS1, TS2, and TS3 are of equal importance. Management Subfactor MS 1, MS 2, and Past Performance are of equal importance but not as important as the technical subfactors. These non-cost factors/subfactors, when combined, are significantly more important than Cost and Price. Cost and price will be evaluated for reasonableness and realism and will be considered as part of the integrated assessment of best value.

M-3.0 Factor F1: Security Plan (Acceptable/Unacceptable)

The Government will evaluate the overall Security Plan of each offeror as either “Acceptable” or

“Unacceptable” (as defined at Table M-2).

The team will evaluate the following areas:

a. Approach for obtaining appropriate facility and personnel security clearances.

b. Processes for safeguarding classified materials (to include handling, storage, and transmission) in accordance with the requirements of the DD254.

c. Processes for safeguarding Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) (to include handling, storage, and transmission) in accordance with the requirements of the DD254.

d. Approach for providing cleared personnel upon completion of the contract transition period and throughout contract performance, including short notice change orders.

Failure to adequately address all four aspects of an offeror’s Security Plan will result in an

“Unacceptable” rating. Offerors that receive an “Unacceptable” rating for Security Plan (after discussions if discussions are held) will be removed from consideration for award.

M-4.0 FACTOR F2: Small Business (Acceptable/Unacceptable)

The Government will evaluate the overall Small Business Compliance Plan of each offeror as either “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable”, as defined at Table M-4.

TABLE M-4: Small Business Acceptable/Unacceptable Definitions

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

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

To receive an “Acceptable” rating in this factor, the offeror’s Small Business Compliance Plan must:

a. Provide a sound process and description of how the offeror plans to track and monitor their compliance with FAR 52.219-14(c)(1), Limitations on Subcontracting.

b. Demonstrate that the Small Business Primes total labor cost is at least 50% as identified in Table L-3 in Section L.

c. Ensure values provided in Table L-3 in Section L are consistent with the values provided in the Cost Volume.

Failure to adequately address all three aspects of an offeror’s Small Business Compliance Plan will result in an “Unacceptable” rating. Offerors that receive an “Unacceptable” rating for Small

Business (after discussions if discussions are held) will be removed from consideration for award.

M-5.0 Factor F3: Transition Plan (Acceptable/Unacceptable)

The Government will evaluate the overall Transition Plan of each offeror as either “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” (as defined at Table M-2).

To receive an “Acceptable” rating in this factor, the offeror’s Transition Plan must provide an effective approach to successfully planning, implementing, and accomplishing a seamless transition and maintaining continuity of support during the transition period as defined in the

PWS.

Offerors that receive an “Unacceptable” rating for Transition Plan (after discussions, if discussions are held) will be removed from consideration for award.

M-6.0 Factor F4: Past Performance (Trade Off)

The past performance evaluation determines 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, and quality of performance, in supplying services that meet the contract’s requirements.

The Past Performance evaluation will result in a Performance Confidence Assessment as defined at Table M-7. Offerors assessed with a Performance Confidence Assessment of “No

Confidence” after the communications described in FAR 15.306(b)(4), if the Contracting Officer deems them necessary, will be removed from consideration for award.

In conducting this evaluation, 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, PCOs, and

Fee Determining Officials; and the Defense Contract Management Agency.

The Government will conduct an assessment of the offeror’s, Team Members’, and Major

Subcontractors’ Past Performance. Team Members and Major Subcontractors are defined in L-

1.2.

M-6.1 Recency

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

M-6.2 Relevancy Assessment

If the past performance information is recent, the relevancy assessment will be conducted on the offerors’ past 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. This area demonstrates the depth and breadth of relevant experience of the offeror, including major or critical subcontractors and/or subsidiaries.

Relevancy for the offerors’ past contracts will be assigned in accordance with the definitions outlined in Table M-5 below. The Past Performance Evaluation Team will conduct an in-depth review and evaluation of all performance data obtained to determine whether those efforts relate 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, Team Members, and

Major Subcontractors whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. A single relevancy rating will be assessed for each recent PPI.

TABLE M-5: Factor F4 Relevancy Definitions

M-6.3 Quality Assessment

The quality assessment is an evaluation that determines how well the offeror performed on recent and relevant past contracts. The Past Performance Evaluation Team will review this past performance information and determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to the Past

Performance Evaluation. A quality assessment will only be conducted against the offerors’ contracts assessed as recent and somewhat relevant or greater.

The Past Performance Evaluation Team will utilize the following ratings in assessing quality of performance relative to contract performance information obtained from other sources to include but not limited to: PPQs, PPIRS, FAPIIS, eSRS, or other databases; interviews with Program

Managers, PCOs, and Fee Determining Officials; and the Defense Contract management

Agency. A single quality rating will be assessed for each PPI.

TABLE M-6: Factor F4 Quality Definitions for Past Performance

Rating Descriptions

Exceptional Performance met all contract requirements and exceeded many to the

Government’s benefit. Problems, if any, were negligible and were resolved in a time, highly effective manner.

Very Good Performance met all contract requirements and exceeded some to the

Government’s benefit. There were a few minor problems that the

Offeror resolved in a timely, effective manner.

Satisfactory Performance met contract requirements. There were some minor problems and corrective actions taken by the contractor were sufficient.

Marginal Performance did not meet some contractual requirements. There were problems, some of a serious nature, for which corrective action was only marginally effective.

Unsatisfactory Performance did not meet most contractual requirements. There were serious problems and the contractor’s correction actions were ineffective.

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.

N/A Unknown or not required in the contract

M-6.4 Overall Past Performance Rating

Based on the Recency, Relevancy, and Quality ratings assessed for each PPI, an overall

Performance Confidence Assessment (as defined at Table M-7) will be assessed for each offeror.

TABLE M-7: Factor F4 Performance Confidence Assessment Definitions

Rating Description

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.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral 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 reasonable assigned. The Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has a low expectation that the Offeror will 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.

Note: In the case of an offeror without a record of somewhat recent and somewhat relevant (or greater) 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 Confidence.” A record of

“Substantial” or “Satisfactory” Confidence will be considered more advantageous to the

Government than a record of “Unknown Confidence.”

M-6.5 Adverse Past Performance

Adverse past performance information is defined as past performance information that negatively impacts the performance confidence assessment on any evaluation aspect or verifiable unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system. When a recent and 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 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 PCO must discuss adverse past performance with each offeror still being considered for award.

M-7.0 FACTOR F5: Technical

The Government technical evaluation team will evaluate the overall technical capability and approach of each offeror. The evaluation will focus on compliance with solicitation requirements. Each subfactor within the Technical factor will receive one of the color ratings described in Table M-9. The Government will assess Technical proposal risk at the subfactor level focused on weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and/or deficiencies associated with the offeror’s proposed technical approach.

Technical Subfactor 1 (TS1): Connecting Laboratories Whitepaper

Technical Subfactor 2 (TS2): Test Plan Whitepaper

Technical Subfactor 3 (TS3): Architecture Integration Concept Whitepaper

M-7.1 Subfactor TS1: Connecting Laboratories Whitepaper

This subfactor measures the degree to which the offeror demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of the nature and scope of work required by the Performance Work Statement

(PWS).

The Government’s evaluation will assess the offeror’s approach to performing the Evaluation

Scenario’s technical activities as identified in the PWS. The evaluation will place emphasis on the offeror’s approach in the following areas:

Effective leadership recommendation communication abilities

Understanding of evaluation scenario weapon system configuration

Knowledge of DoD RMF controls

Knowledge of DoD weapon system related-cybersecurity requirements

Effective and efficient applied knowledge of weapon system cybersecurity RMF controls in the leadership recommendation

Knowledge of overall DoD cybersecurity

Applied cybersecurity baseline certification knowledge

The executability of the recommendation

Traceability from evaluation scenario to PWS requirements 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3

Understanding of IAT and IASAE scenario associated efforts in the Labor Mix and

Hours and related justification

M-7.2 Subfactor TS2: Test Plan Whitepaper understanding of the nature and scope of work required by the Performance Work Statement

(PWS).

The Government’s evaluation will assess the offeror’s approach to performing the Evaluation

Effective technical concept and communication abilities

Knowledge of penetration test concepts and strategies

Knowledge of cybersecurity system assessment activities

Understanding of scenario weapon system configuration

Effective and efficient applied knowledge of weapon system cybersecurity within the technical assessment

Effective and efficient evaluation procedures/safeguards to improve cybersecurity intended level of protection within the recommendation

Knowledge of overall DoD cybersecurity

Applied cybersecurity baseline certification knowledge

The executability of the test plan

How the Test Plan reflects scenario related government benefit(s)

Traceability from scenario to PWS requirements 3.5

Understanding of IASAE associated efforts in the Labor Mix and Hours and related justification

M-7.3 Subfactor TS3: Architecture Integration Concept Whitepaper understanding of the nature and scope of work required by the PWS.

The government’s evaluation will assess the offeror’s approach to performing the Evaluation

Effective leadership recommendation and communication abilities

Knowledge of Cybersecurity Program Implications

Knowledge of DoD RMF controls

Understanding of scenario weapon system configuration

Knowledge of DoD weapon system related-cybersecurity requirements

Effective and efficient applied knowledge of weapon system cybersecurity RMF controls in the leadership recommendation

Understanding of full ‘Life Cycle’ processes in implementing major build technology updates aligned with cybersecurity activities

Knowledge of overall DoD cybersecurity

Applied cybersecurity baseline certification knowledge

The executability of the recommendation

Traceability from scenario to PWS requirements 3.3 and 3.4

Understanding of IASAE scenario associated efforts in the Labor Mix and Hours and related justification

M-7.4 Factor F4: Discriminator Definition

Each proposal will be evaluated against the solicitation and its stated evaluation factors and subfactors for award. The Government’s Technical evaluation will focus on compliance with solicitation requirements and discriminators, including proposal strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies (as defined at Table M-8).

Each Technical Subfactor will receive one of the color ratings described in Table M-9. The color ratings will not be rolled up to the Technical Factor level. The Technical Subfactor color ratings focus on the strengths, significant weaknesses, weaknesses, deficiencies, and a risk consideration. Risk consideration addresses any potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost, degradation of performance, and the need for increased Government oversight, as well as the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

TABLE M-8: Evaluation Definitions

Discriminator Definition

Strength

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 A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Significant Weakness A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Deficiency

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.

M-7.5 Adjectival/Color Rating Definitions

Evaluation of the Technical Factor shall focus on the degree to which the proposed approach meets or does not meet the performance requirements through an assessment of the strengths and deficiencies using the color ratings at Table M-9. The Government will not roll up Technical

Subfactor ratings into an overall Technical adjectival/color rating. Note a deficiency (defined above) in the offeror’s proposal could render the offeror’s proposal unawardable

TABLE M-9: Subfactor Rating Definitions Color Rating Definition

BLUE Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths; risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

PURPLE Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength; risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

GREEN Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements; risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

YELLOW Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

RED Unacceptable

Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

M-7.6 Risk Rating Definitions

Evaluation of risk considers and potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost, degradation of performance, and the need for increased Government oversight, as well as the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. Risk will be evaluated and assigned one of the ratings from table M-10. The risk rating will factor into the overall technical factor assessment as described in table M-9

TABLE M-10: Subfactor Risk Rating Definitions

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.

M-8.0 FACTOR F6: Management

The Government management evaluation team will evaluate the overall management capability and approach of each offeror. The evaluation will focus on compliance with solicitation requirements. The Management factor will receive one of the color ratings described in Table

M-9. The Government will assess Management proposal risk focused on weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and/or deficiencies associated with the offeror’s proposed Management

Approach

M-8.1 Subfactor MS1: Workforce Management Approach

The Government will evaluate and place emphasis on the degree to which the Prime offeror’s approach provides for a sound management strategy, clearly:

Presenting the documented processes for workforce management

Presenting a sound process by which the offeror’s compensation plan is used for obtaining and retaining a quality workforce based on data provided IAW

FAR 52.222-46 “Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees”

Outlining the strategy to retain capable, qualified and skilled personnel

Outlining the strategy to ensure continuity of services in the midst of personnel disruption (such as sickness, leave, and voluntary or involuntary termination)

Presenting the documented processes for turnover

M-8.2 Subfactor MS2: Contract Management Approach

The Government will evaluate the degree to which the offeror’s approach clearly demonstrates:

An effective approach to managing cost, schedule, and technical performance

An effective approach for identification of substandard performance and effective implementation of corrective actions

Effective lines of authority and communication, functional relationships, processes, and roles and responsibilities

An effective approach to manage teaming partners and/or subcontractor relationships

Adequate resourcing to support normal work effort and the ability to adapt those resources to urgent, emerging, and surge requirements

An effective approach and processes for tracking status and prioritizing tasks, and an effective process for proactive, timely accomplishment of tasks and balancing workload

An effective approach to provide cross-cutting functional support and integration across all disciplines

An effective approach for creating a collaborative environment that fosters teamwork and communication between the offeror, Government stakeholders, and other contractors that are part of the MDA team.

M-8.3 Factor F6 Discriminator Definitions

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

The Management Factor will receive one of the color ratings described in Table M-9. The

Management factor color rating focuses on the strengths, significant weaknesses, weaknesses, deficiencies, and risks of the proposal. Risk consideration addresses any potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost, degradation of performance, and the need for increased Government oversight, as well as the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

M-8.4 Adjectival/Color Rating Definitions

Evaluation of the Management factor shall focus on the degree to which the proposed approach meets or does not meet the performance requirements through an assessment of the strengths and deficiencies using the color ratings at Table M-9. Note a deficiency (defined above) in the offeror’s proposal could render the offeror’s proposal unawardable.

M-8.5 Risk Definitions

Evaluation of risk considers any potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost, degradation of performance, and the need for increased Government oversight, as well as the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. Risk will be evaluated and assigned one of the adjectival ratings from table M-11:

Table M-11. Technical Risk Rating Method Adjectival 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.

M-9.0 FACTOR F7: Cost/Price

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 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/price factor.

M-9.1 Cost risk

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

M-9.2 Affordability

An affordable proposal does not force the Government 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-9.3 Reasonableness

Since the Government anticipates adequate price competition, the Government 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 may require certified cost or pricing data (see FAR 15.403-4).

M-9.4 Cost Realism

Cost realism analysis is the process of independently reviewing and evaluating specific elements of each offeror’s proposed cost estimate to determine whether the estimated proposed cost elements are realistic for the work to be performed; reflect a clear understanding of the requirements; and are consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the offeror’s technical proposal.

The SSEB’s cost realism analysis will assess the proposed types and quantities of labor as well as the direct and indirect rates used to develop all proposed costs and the likelihood that the proposed technical and management approach can successfully accomplish the requirements at the proposed price. A cost realism analysis will only be completed on awardable proposals.

For cost type CLINs, the result of cost realism analysis is the Probable Cost. The Probable Cost may differ from the proposed cost and will reflect the Government’s best estimate of the cost that is most likely to result from the Offeror’s proposal. Probable Cost will be used to determine the best value. The Government’s evaluated Probable Cost will consist of the following elements:

When appropriate based on cost realism analysis, adjustments to proposed cost to realistic levels based on analysis of the proposed resources by the management and technical evaluation teams.

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

M-9.5 Cost Price Factor Evaluation Results

As part of price evaluation, the Government will evaluate its option to extend services (see

FAR Clause 52.217-8) by adding one-half of the offeror's final labor option period cost and fee, to the offeror's total cost and fee. Thus, the offeror's total price for the purpose of evaluation will include the base period, 1st option, 2nd option, and one-half of the 2nd option.

The SSEB will provide the SSA with the following for consideration in making the best value determination:

The Government’s overall evaluated cost/price, which will consist of the following:

o The Government’s estimate of the realistic cost of successfully completing the cost reimbursable CLINs, including the cost for the 6 month option to extend services, using the Offeror’s unique approach and proposed fixed fee associated with those

CLINs.

o The Government specified amounts for the Travel and Surge CLINs and the offeror's proposed fixed fee for the Surge CLIN.

o The total amount of any additional costs to the Government which are necessary to support the Offeror’s unique approach (e.g., costs associated with the use of

Government Furnished Property (GFP)/Government Furnished Equipment

(GFE)/etc.).

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