ATTACHMENT 03 Evaluation Factors and Evaluation Process - 20191231.pdf

Defense MilPay Office Integrated Support

HQ042319R0049-0004 ATTACHMENT 03

12/31/2019

ATTACHMENT 03, EVALUATION FACTORS AND EVALUATION PROCESS

1.0. GENERAL INFORMATION

1.1. Basis for Selection:

Pursuant to the FAR 15.1, Best Value Continuum, an award shall be made to the offeror whose proposal represents the best value to the Government, price and other factors considered. Best value means “the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the Government’s estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirement” (Ref: FAR 2.101). The evaluation factors for this effort are: Technical Approach, Past Performance, and Price. Trade-off between price and non-price factors (Technical Approcah and Past Performance) shall be utilized to determine the best value. Technical Approach and Past Performance are equal in importance, and when combined, are significantly more important than Price.

2.0. EVALUATION FACTORS

Factor 1 – Technical Approach:

For Factor 1, Offerors will describe their technical approach to meeting the requirements described in the Performance Work Statement (RFP Attachment 01) and specifically addresses Subfactors (1) and (2) below.

Subfactor 1– Management Plan

The Government will evaluate the proposed management plan to ensure Offeror has demonstrated an understanding of the work to be performed, including competent and thorough knowledge of the requirement(s) as stated in the PWS. Offerors shall possess an in-depth and detailed knowledge of DMO or similar system, and DMO’s capabilities.

Additionally, the management plan will be evaluated based on the extent to which it demonstrates sound business practices and clearly conveys how it will minimize any potential disruptions to the DMO support services.

Subfactor 2 – Key Personnel and Qualifications The Government will evaluate the qualifications of the Offeror’s proposed program manager and subject matter expert to ensure they possess the minimum qualifications in terms of education, general experience and specialized experience. Further expected capabilities are outlined as well. Proposed program managers who possess extensive knowledge of the DMO or similar system may be rated more favorably. Additionally, program managers who have demonstrated the ability to quickly fill staff vacancies may be rated more favorably.

For purposes of evaluation, a proposed resource’s education will translate into experience using the following table:

Education General Specialized

Ph.D. Degree 3 Years 2 Years Masters Degree 3 Years 1 Year Bachelors Degree 3 Years No Specialized Associate Degree 1.5 Years No Specialized

Resources

1. Program Manager or Equivalent:

Education: BA or BS degree in any field.

General Experience: Must have twelve (12) years of Automated Data Processing (ADP) experience to include at least eight (8) years of ADP software management experience.

Specialized Experience: At least seven (7) years of direct supervision of ADP software development and/or maintenance projects. Must be capable of leading projects that involve the successful management of teams composed of data processing and other information management professionals that have been involved in analysis, design, integration, testing, documenting, converting, extending and implementing automated information systems. Must have proven skills that are specified in the contract to be managed.

Expected capabilities: The resource is capable of managing a staff providing programming and related support to a DMO like application; has a demonstrated record of being able to quickly find replacement staff for a contract; is capable of handling all types of issues arising from a contract supporting a customer.

2. Subject Matter Expert:

Education: Bachelor’s degree in computer science, information systems, or a related field. A bachelor’s degree is required, but demonstrated equivalent information technology experience can be substituted if degree is in another field of study.

General Experience: Must have twelve (12) years of experience in the ADP field.

Specialized Experience: At least eight (8) years of combined new and related older technical experience in the ADP field directly related to the required area of expertise.

Expected Capabilities: Resources shall be knowledgeable in at least one of the following specialties:

a. Oracle system interface and Oracle databases

b. web architecture

c. SQL programming and database functions

d. Cognos Analytics software focus

Technical Evaluation Definitions:

The following definitions will be used in determining the deficiencies, strengths, weaknesses, and significant weaknesses of each technical proposal:

Strength, is 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, is a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Significant Weakness, is a flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Deficiency, is 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.

Technical Evaluation Rating:

The evaluator shall select one of the adjectival ratings below that most clearly matches the assessment of the proposal’s merit based on the established evaluation criteria. All proposals shall be assigned one of the below adjectival ratings.

Combined Technical/Risk Ratings:

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

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

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

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

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.

Factor 2 – Past Performance:

Proposal must identify past or current contracts (including Federal, State, and local government and private) for efforts similar to this requirement within the last five (5) years. Each past performance engagement identified must include a summary which addresses relevancy to this requirement (e.g.

DMO or similar system), information on any problems encountered, and any corrective actions taken.

Each effort must be identified by: 1) contract number, 2) contract value, 3) period of performance, 4) description of requirement, 5) Government department and agency or private client, 6) Government Contracting Officer or private client’s point of contact (POC) with full address, phone/fax number or email address for each reference.

The Government shall evaluate recent and relevant performance information on Offerors based on the information retrieved from past or current contracts provided by the Offeror. The project client shall be contacted for this purpose, and the performance information received shall be evaluated accordingly. Additionally, the Government may seek, and consider in the evaluation, data independently obtained from other government and commercial sources, including databases such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) at https://www.cpars.gov/ for all Federal Government contracts listed in the offeror’s proposal.

Furthermore, pursuant to DFARS 215.305(a)(2)(A), proposals shall also be evaluated in the past performance of offerors in complying with requirements in 52.219-8.

Past Performance Ratings

For past performance purposes, the Government will evaluate and assign one of the ratings listed in the table below to each of the contracts, which an Offeror submits:

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

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

https://www.cpars.gov/

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, magnitude of effort, and complexities this solicitation requires.

Overall Performance Confidence Assessments:

The Government will determine how well the vendor performed on other contracts by reviewing past performance evaluation information and then assigning a performance confidence assessment rating for each vendor in the manner described below.

Adjectival 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 reasonably 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.

Factor 3 – Price The offeror's price will be evaluated based on the offeror's Total Evaluated Price (TEP). The TEP will be calculated by adding all the offeror's Contract Lines Items Numbers (CLIN) Prices from the Pricing Template, RFP Attachment 05. Each CLIN Price will be calculated by multiplying the Offeror's proposed labor rates with corresponding Government plug-in hours on the RFP Attachment 05.

Each responsive Price Proposal will be evaluated for reasonableness and balance, using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404. For a price to be determined reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business.

Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more line items is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques.

3.0. EVALUATION PROCESS

The Government intends to evaluate Proposals and award a labor-hour (LH) contract based upon the Offeror’s proposed technical approach, past performance, and price based on the initial proposal.

The Government intends to make an award without entering into discussions, therefore, Offerors are highly advised to submit what they consider their best proposals in accordance with the terms and conditions of the RFP. The award shall be made to the responsible Offeror whose Proposal represents the best value to the Government. The Government may reject any or all Proposals if such action is in the public interest; accept a Proposal other than the lowest priced Proposal; and/ or waive informalities and minor irregularities in Proposals received.

Proposals shall first be evaluated for compliance. Compliance is met when the proposal adhered to the proposal submission instruction, and the Offeror is a certified SBA 8(a) Program participant and must be registered in www.sam.gov (Ref FAR 4.1102). A proposal that is determined non-compliant may be ineligible for an award.

Next, each proposal shall be evaluated against the evaluation factors and subfactors set forth in the evaluation plan and identified in the RFP. The evaluation shall provide an assessment of the strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, and risks identified within each proposal. Additionally, the evaluations will provide an assessment of technical risk, which is manifested by the identification of weakness(es), considers potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and/or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

The Government Source Selection Authority (SSA) will conduct an independent review of all the compliant proposals and utilize inputs from the source selection evaluation team results to make the source selection decision, and make an award to the selected Offeror.

http://www.sam.gov/