Section_M_-_BMDS_CSM-CND__15_Jan_16.pdf

HQ0147-16-R-0008

TEAMS BMDS CSM/CND

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-1.1 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

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 subpart 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 Request for Proposal (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 and Price. The offeror’s Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI)

Management Plan, Security Plan, and Small Business Plan 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 and price for offers with “Acceptable” approaches to OCI Management, Security, 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 hard copy response. If a hard copy 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 SSA will 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 by the PCO in accordance with FAR 15.503, whereupon they may request and receive a debriefing in accordance with FAR Subparts 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.

M-3.0 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY AND CRITERIA

M-3.1 Factors/Subfactors and Their Relative Order of Importance

The SSA will select the offeror whose proposal is considered the best value to the Government consistent with the factors and subfactors listed below.

TABLE M-1: ACCEPTABLE/UNACCEPTABLE FACTORS

Acceptable/Unacceptable Factors

Factor F1: Organizational Conflict of Interest Management Plan

Factor F2: INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Factor F3: Security Plan

Factor F4: Small Business

Factors F1 through F4 will all be evaluated on an “Acceptable/Unacceptable” basis using the ratings at Table M-3. There is no order of relative importance for these Factors. Offerors assessed with an “Unacceptable” in any of these Factors will not be eligible for award.

TABLE M-2: EVALUATION FACTORS/SUBFACTORS

Evaluation Factors

Factor F5: Past Performance

Factor F6: Technical

Subfactor TS1: Major Weapon System Cybersecurity Management

Subfactor TS2: Scenario Response #1 Risk Management Framework (RMF) Controls Executive

Recommendation

Subfactor TS3: Scenario Response #2 Executive Technical Assessment and Recommendations

Subfactor TS4: Scenario Response #3 Potential Insider Threat Analysis Plan

Factor F7: Management

Subfactor MS1: Workforce Management Approach

Subfactor MS2: Contract Management Approach

Subfactor MS3: Transition Plan

Factor F8: Cost and Price

The Technical factor is more important than the Past Performance factor. The Past Performance factor is more important than the Management factor. Cost and Price factor will be evaluated for reasonableness and realism and will be considered as part of the integrated assessment of best value. The Technical, Past Performance, and Management factors, when combined, are significantly more important than the Cost and Price factor.

Technical Subfactor TS1, TS2, TS3, and TS4 are of equal importance. Management Subfactor

MS 1 and MS2 are of equal importance. MS3 “Transition Plan” is slightly less important than either MS1 or MS2 individually.

M-4.0 Factor F1: OCI Management Plan (Acceptable/Unacceptable)

The Government will evaluate the overall OCI Management Plan of each offeror as either

“Acceptable” or “Unacceptable”, as defined at Table M-3.

The team will evaluate how the offeror identifies, evaluates, and resolves actual and potential

OCIs; the adequacy of its OCI training and oversight programs; the adequacy of its procedures for complying with MDA OCI Manual 5013.78-M, MDA Policy Memorandum No. 51, and

TEAMS OCI Memorandum, OCI Clause (H-09), and the soundness of its processes to protect proprietary and nonpublic information from unauthorized disclosure.

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

M-4.1 Acceptable/Unacceptable Definitions

The following “Acceptable/Unacceptable” methodology will be utilized for Factors F1, F3, and

F4.

TABLE M-3: 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.

M-5.0 Factor F2: INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

M-6.0 Factor F3: 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-3)

The team will evaluate the offeror’s approach to providing appropriately cleared facilities and personnel to support the requirements of the contract upon completion of the contract transition period; the adequacy of processes for safeguarding classified materials and controlled unclassified information (to include handling, storage and transmission) IAW the requirements of the DD 254; and the soundness of its process for providing cleared personnel upon completion of the contract transition period and throughout contract performance, including short-notice change orders.

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

M-7.0 Factor F4: Small Business (Acceptable/Unacceptable)

M-7.1 Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Large Businesses Only) and Small Business

Participation Plan (Large and Small Businesses)

The Government will evaluate the overall Small Business Subcontracting Plan and Small

Business Participation Plan of each offeror as either “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” (as defined at Table M-3).

For a Large Business to receive an “Acceptable” rating in this factor, the offeror’s Small

Business Participation Plan must be consistent with the Small Business Subcontracting Plan, and include b, c, d, and f below; while the Small Business Subcontracting Plan must include a-f below:

a. Include all information required by FAR 52.219-9.

b. Include all items required by Section L.

c. Meet the percentages identified in Section L and clearly identify the percentage of small business effort in all the appropriate categories.

d. Provide the basis for and efforts associated with establishing proposed percentages, to include initiatives and tools that will be employed under the contract to enhance small business participation.

e. Provide a detailed process (either currently in use or proposed) whereby the offeror has the capability to successfully track and report (in eSRS) subcontracted dollars and percentages at all tiers.

f. Provide a description of the offeror’s commitment to use small business 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 the proposal.

For a Small Business to receive an “Acceptable” rating in this factor, the offeror’s Small

Business Participation Plan must:

a. Provide a narrative of the offeror’s plan to comply with FAR 52.219-8.

b. Include all items required by the Small Business Participation Plan in Section L.

c. Clearly identify the percentage of small business subcontracted effort in all the appropriate categories.

d. Provide the basis for and efforts associated with establishing proposed percentages, to include initiatives and tools that will be employed under the contract to enhance small business participation.

e. Provide a description of the offeror’s commitment to use small business 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 the proposal.

M-8.0 Factor F5: Past Performance

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-6. 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-8.1 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-8.2 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 offeror’s past contracts will be assigned in accordance with the definitions outlined in Table M-4 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-4: Factor F5 Relevancy Definitions

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.

M-8.3 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 relevant.

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-5: Factor F5 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 timely, 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 corrective actions were ineffective.

N/A Unknown or not required in the contract.

M-8.4 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-6) will be assessed for each offeror.

TABLE M-6: Factor F5 Performance Confidence Assessment for Past Performance

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.

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.

Unknown Confidence

(Neutral)

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.

Note: In the case of an offeror without a record of recent and relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have “Unknown Confidence.” A record of “Substantial” or “Satisfactory”

Confidence will be considered more advantageous to the Government than a record of

“Unknown Confidence.”

M-8.5 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-9.0 Factor F6: 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-8. Each subfactor with the Technical Factor will receive one of the proposal risk ratings described in Table M-9. The Government will assess Technical proposal risk associated at the subfactor level focused on weaknesses associated with the offeror’s proposed technical approach. The Evaluation Scenarios will be assessed focusing on:

communication abilities, depth of demonstrated cybersecurity knowledge, and knowledge of

PWS tasking. All subfactors will also be evaluated to assess strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, deficiencies, and risks.

Subfactor T1: Major Weapon System Cybersecurity Management

Subfactor T2: Scenario Response #1 Risk Management Framework (RMF) Controls Executive

Recommendation

Subfactor T3: Scenario Response #2 Executive Technical Assessment and Recommendations

Subfactor T4: Scenario Response #3 Potential Insider Threat Analysis Plan

M-9.1 Subfactor TS1: Major Weapon System Cybersecurity Management

This subfactor measures the degree to which the offeror demonstrates an understanding of the nature and scope of work required in primarily PWS subparagraphs 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.3, 3.1.4, 3.1.5, and 3.1.6. The evaluation will place emphasis on the offeror's approach concept and Basis of Approach with respect to the following:

Understanding of the five lifecycle Security Plans and Accreditation Packages efforts

Reviewing CS/IA policies and making recommendations based on compliance with applicable regulations and guidance

Understanding IS cybersecurity pre-test, test execution, and post-test activities

Knowledge of IS related POA&Ms and their use in the decision process

Knowledge on external agency MOUs and/or MOAs coordination along with appropriate documentation for accreditation decisions

Updating POA&Ms, and developing Executive communications

Integrating cybersecurity recommendations and coordination with other organizational teammates

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

M-9.2 Subfactor TS2: Scenario Response #1 Risk Management Framework (RMF) Controls

Executive Recommendation

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 assess the offeror’s approach in the following areas:

Effective Program Manager 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 Program Manager recommendation

Knowledge of overall DoD cybersecurity

Applied IA baseline certification knowledge

The executability of the recommendation

Traceability from evaluation scenario to PWS requirements (Table 3.1.1, Table 3.1.2, and subparagraphs 3.1.2, 3.1.3, 3.1.4, 3.1.5, and 3.1.6)

Understanding of ISSO evaluation scenario associated efforts in the Labor Mix and

Hours and related justification

M-9.3 Subfactor TS3: Scenario Response #2 Executive Technical Assessment and

Recommendations 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

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

Effective Program Manager technical assessment and recommendation communication abilities

Knowledge of Cybersecurity Program Implications

Knowledge of RMF controls

Knowledge of cybersecurity system assessment activities

Understanding of Evaluation Scenario weapon system configuration

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

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 IA baseline certification knowledge

The executability of the recommendation

How the Technical Assessment and/or Recommendation reflects Evaluation Scenario related government benefit(s)

Traceability from Evaluation Scenario to PWS requirements (Table 3.1.1, Table 3.1.2, and subparagraphs 3.1.2, 3.1.3, 3.1.4, 3.1.5, and 3.1.6)

Understanding of ISSO Evaluation Scenario associated efforts in the Labor Mix and

M-9.4 Subfactor TS4: Scenario Response #3 Potential Insider Threat Analysis Plan 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

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

Effective Executive communication abilities

Knowledge of log file collection and utilization (to include Routine Monitoring and identification of Suspicious Log Files)

Effective and efficient innovative cybersecurity CND analysis plan model for potential insider threat

Knowledge of sources to be reviewed and approach for chain of custody

Knowledge of ability to provide conclusionary situational awareness / recommendation concept

Knowledge of overall DoD regulations

Applied IA baseline certification knowledge

The executability of the recommendation

Traceability from Evaluation Scenario to PWS requirements (Table 3.2.1 and subparagraphs 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.2.4, and 3.2.5)

Understanding of CND-A Evaluation Scenario associated efforts in the Labor Mix and

M-9.5 Factor F6 Discriminator Definitions

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-7).

Each Technical Subfactor will receive one of the color ratings described in Table M-8 and one of the risk ratings described in Table M-9. The color ratings and risk ratings will not be rolled up to the Technical Factor level. The Technical Subfactor color and risk ratings focus on the strengths, significant weaknesses, weaknesses, deficiencies, and risks.

TABLE M-7: 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

Discriminator Definition 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-9.6 Subfactor 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-8. 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-8: Subfactor Rating Definitions Color Rating Definition

BLUE Outstanding

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal contains multiple strengths and no deficiencies.

PURPLE Good

Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains at least one strength and no deficiencies.

GREEN Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal has no deficiencies.

YELLOW Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

RED Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable.

M-9.7 Subfactor Risk Rating Definitions

Each Technical subfactor will receive one of the Risk ratings defined in Table M-9 (Subfactor

Risk Definitions) below. The risk ratings will not be rolled up to the Technical factor level. The

Government will evaluate risks associated with each Technical subfactor. Assessment of technical risk, which is manifested by the identification of weakness(es), significant weakness(es), and deficiencies, considers the 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-9: Subfactor Risk Definitions

Low Has 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 Can 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 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.

M-10.0 Factor F7: 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. Each subfactor within the Management factor will receive one of the color ratings described in Table M-8. The Government will assess Management proposal risk associated at the subfactor level focused on strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies associated with the offeror’s proposed Management approach. Each subfactor within the

Management factor will receive one of the proposal risk ratings described in Table M-9.

M-10.1 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-10.2 Subfactor MS2: Contract Management Approach

The Government will evaluate and place emphasis on 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 MD TEAM.

M-10.3 Subfactor MS3: Transition Plan

The Government will evaluate the degree to which the offeror’s approach reflects an effective strategy for implementing and accomplishing a seamless transition, maintaining continuity of support during the transition period as defined in the PWS.

M-10.4 Factor F7 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, and deficiencies (as defined at Table M-7).

Each Management subfactor will receive one of the color ratings described in Table M-8 and one of the risk ratings described in Table M-9. The color ratings and risk ratings will not be rolled up to the factor level. The Management subfactor color and risk ratings focus on the strengths, significant weaknesses, weaknesses, deficiencies, and risks.

M-10.5 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-8. The Government will not roll up subfactor ratings into an overall adjectival/color rating for Management. Note a deficiency (defined above) in the offeror’s proposal could render the offeror’s proposal unawardable.

M-10.6 Risk Ratings

Each Management subfactor will receive one of the Risk ratings defined in Table M-9 (Subfactor

Risk Definitions). The risk ratings will not be rolled up to the Management factor level. The

Government will evaluate risks associated with each Management subfactor. Assessment of management risk, which is manifested by the identification of weakness(es), significant weakness(es), and deficiencies, considers the 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-11.0 FACTOR F8: 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-11.1 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-11.2 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-11.3 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-11.4 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 Government’s cost realism analysis will assess the direct and indirect rates utilized to develop the proposed price, and the likelihood that the proposed resources can successfully accomplish the PWS in accordance with the offeror’s unique technical and management approach at the proposed estimated cost. The Government will only develop a Probable Cost for the cost type priced CLINs. 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 costs, to realistic levels.

M-11.5 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.