MIOES Section M DRFP Inc2.docx

HQ0857-24-R-0001

Section M Evaluation Factors for Award

HQ0857-25-R-0001

Section M

HQ0857-25-R-0001

MDA Information Technology and Engineering Solutions (MIOES)

Section M

XXX XX, XXXX

Table of Contents

SECTION M: EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Government will evaluate the Offerors’ proposals in accordance with the criteria specified in this section. The Government reserves the right to make an award or no award.

This is a full and open best-value tradeoff, competitive source selection conducted in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15, as supplemented by the Defense FAR Supplement (DFARS) Part 215, DoD Source Selection Procedures dated August 20, 2022 and MDA Instruction 5013.06-INS 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. The Government intends to award one contract as a result of this solicitation. Offerors shall submit one proposal.

2.2 Discussions

While the option to engage in discussions during this source selection is a possibility, the Government reserves the right to determine if discussions are necessary. Therefore, the Offeror's initial proposal shall contain the Offeror's best terms for cost and non-cost factors. If discussions are not necessary, the Offerors may be given the opportunity in accordance with FAR 15.306 to clarify certain aspects of their proposals or to resolve minor or clerical errors.

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. Responses from Offerors may be required within two (2) business days.

Should the Government need to conduct written discussions with Offerors, they will be in the form of an evaluation notice (EN). The specified format and page limits for EN responses will be identified in the letters forwarding the ENs to the Offerors. The ENs may be sent electronically (e.g., via e-mail) at the discretion of the PCO. The letters forwarding the ENs to the Offerors will request an e-mail response. Offerors must submit responses by the time and date specified in the PCO letter accompanying the ENs.

The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unrealistic, including contract terms and conditions, program commitments, unrealistically low price, 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. Further, the Government may reject any proposal that is incomplete (e.g., missing Volume).

2.3 Competitive Range

If discussions are required, a competitive range determination will be utilized in accordance with FAR 15.306(c). 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 (FAR 15.306(c)(2)), 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 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. A 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 or 15.506.

2.5 Final Proposal Revisions (FPR)

If discussions are deemed necessary with Offeror(s), upon completion of those discussions, the PCO will request that the Offeror provide a FPR.

The Offeror is advised that any changes to the proposal in the FPR shall be fully addressed, explained, and reflected in the proposed price. Failure to comply with this requirement can adversely influence the evaluation of the proposal. The PCO will establish a common due date and time for submission of the FPR.

If FPRs are requested, any revisions or non-compliance with contract terms and conditions submitted in the FPR may 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, or percentage rates) but is intended to preclude any misunderstandings by the Government (that could result if new or revised terms and conditions submitted in the FPR have not been fully disclosed, discussed, and understood during discussions or negotiations). New or revised terms and conditions are not solicited and, if submitted in the FPR, may render the offer unacceptable to the Government.

2.6 Best Value Trade-off

The Government intends to award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible Offeror whose proposal represents the best value after evaluation in accordance with the factors and subfactors in this solicitation.

The Small Business, Information Management and Control Plan (IMCP), Facility Clearance, Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) Management Plan factors will be evaluated as either Acceptable or Unacceptable. Any proposal with an Unacceptable Small Business, IMCP, Facility Clearance, or OCI Management Plan factor rating is not eligible for award.

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 and Leadership (ML), and Cost and Price. The subfactors under Technical Factor are equal, as are the subfactors under the ML Factor. The Technical Factor is more important than the ML Factor. The ML Factor is more important than the Cost/Price Factor. When combined, the non-cost factors are significantly more important than the Cost/Price Factor. The Cost/Price Factor will not be scored, but will be evaluated for reasonableness and realism, and will be considered as part of the integrated assessment of best value. The importance of cost or price as an award determinant will increase as the degree of equivalence among proposals associated with the other evaluation factors increases.

2.7 Best Value Decision

Award may be made to a higher rated, higher priced Offeror where the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the Technical and/or ML factors of the higher priced Offeror outweighs the price differential. The selection decision will document tradeoffs between Technical, ML, and Cost/Price for offers with an “Acceptable” rating for Small Business, IMCP, Facility Clearance and OCI Management Plan.

2.8 Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, 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, and instructions contained in Section L, may result in the Offeror being removed from consideration for award; this includes incomplete proposal submission (e.g., missing Volumes).

2.9 Contracting Officer’s Responsibility Determination

Prior to awarding a contract, the PCO must perform a responsibility determination for the selected contractor. The standards of contractor responsibility and the requirement for the PCO to make and document a responsibility determination are set forth in FAR 9 and DFARS 209.

Per FAR 9.504(e), the PCO shall award the contract to the apparent successful Offeror unless a conflict of interest is determined to exist that cannot be avoided or mitigated. If an OCI is not adequately resolved, the PCO will notify the Offeror and allow the Offeror a reasonable opportunity to respond before making an award decision. The PCO also reserves the right to obtain an OCI waiver and make an award when in the best interests of the United States. If, after responding to the notice, the apparent successful Offeror is rejected due to an OCI and the PCO elects to not pursue a waiver, the Government reserves the right to award to another apparent successful Offeror. Notices to Offerors of OCIs and the responses thereto are not negotiations or discussions as those terms are used in FAR 15.306(d).

3.0 EVALUATION FACTORS AND RATING METHODOLOGY/DEFINITIONS

The Government will conduct an in-depth review of each proposal against the factors and subfactors established in the solicitation, and assign evaluations ratings as set forth below.

TABLE M-1: Evaluation Factors/Subfactors (Trade-off) Evaluation Factors

Factor 1: Technical Technical Subfactor 1 (TS1): Scenario 1 Cybersecurity Technical Subfactor 2 (TS2): Scenario 2 Agile Adoption Technical Subfactor 3 (TS3): Scenario 3 Cloud Adoption Technical Subfactor 4 (TS4): Scenario 4 Missile Defense Space Enterprise Architecture (MDSEA) Technical Subfactor 5 (TS5): Scenario 5 Enterprise Monitoring Technical Subfactor 6 (TS6): Scenario 6 CERT Response Technical Subfactor 7 (TS7): Scenario 7 Digital Transformation Technical Subfactor 8 (TS8): Scenario 8 Network Connectivity Technical Subfactor 9 (TS9): Scenario 9 Delivery of Real-Time Data Technical Subfactor 10 (TS10): Scenario 10 Efficient Information Systems Operations Technical Subfactor 11 (TS11): Scenario 11 End User Services Technical Subfactor 12 (TS12): Scenario 12 Engineering Review Board Technical Subfactor 13 (TS13): Scenario 13 Event Protection, Monitoring and Reporting Technical Subfactor 14 (TS14): Scenario 14 MDIOC Facility Operations Technical Subfactor 15 (TS15): BOE Cybersecurity Task Order Technical Subfactor 16 (TS16): BOE MDIOC Facility Sustainment & Operations Task Order Factor 2: Management and Leadership (ML) ML Subfactor 1 (MLS1): Program Integration and Enterprise Planning ML Subfactor 2 (MLS2): Management and Organizational Structure ML Subfactor 3 (MLS3): Teaming and Subcontracting Approach ML Subfactor 4 (MLS4): Cost Control Factor 7: Cost and Price

Factor 1, Technical, and Factor 2, ML, will be evaluated using the definitions at Table M-2 and the ratings at Table M-3. Technical and Risk will be rated separately, with the risk descriptions set forth in Table M-4.

TABLE M-2: Evaluation Definitions

Definition

TABLE M-3: Technical Rating Method

TABLE M-4: Technical Risk Rating Method

TABLE M-5: Acceptable/Unacceptable Factor Acceptable/Unacceptable Factors

Factor 3: Small Business Factor 4: IMCP Factor 5: Facility Clearance Factor 6: OCI Management Plan

Factors 3, 4, 5 and 6 will be evaluated on an “Acceptable/Unacceptable” basis using the ratings at Table M-8.

TABLE M-6. Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method

4.0 FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL

The Government will evaluate the approach and understanding of each Offeror’s proposal. Each subfactor within the Technical factor will receive a Color/Adjectival rating in accordance with Table M-3. In addition to assigning a Color/Adjectival rating for each Technical subfactor, the Government will also perform a risk assessment and assign a standalone Risk rating for each Technical subfactor in accordance with Table M-4. The Government will not assign a Color/Adjectival or Risk rating at the Factor Level.

Evaluation of the Offeror’s Technical subfactors shall be based solely on information furnished by the Offeror. To ensure sufficient information is available, the Offeror must furnish, as part of its proposal, all descriptive material necessary for the Government to determine if the Offeror’s approach meets the requirements of the solicitation. In a case where an Offeror fails to provide enough information to determine if the proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation, deficiencies, significant weaknesses, weaknesses, or uncertainties may be assessed.

The Government will evaluate the following Technical subfactors:

5.0 FACTOR 2: MANAGEMENT AND LEADERSHIP (ML)

The Government will evaluate the approach and understanding of each Offeror’s proposal. Each subfactor within the ML factor will receive a Color/Adjectival rating in accordance with Table M-3. In addition to assigning a Color/Adjectival rating for each ML subfactor, the Government will also perform a risk assessment and assign a standalone Risk rating for each ML subfactor in accordance with Table M-4. The Government will not assign a Color/Adjectival or Risk rating at the Factor Level.

Evaluation of the Offeror’s ML subfactors shall be based solely on information furnished by the Offeror. To ensure sufficient information is available, the Offeror must furnish, as part of its proposal, all descriptive material necessary for the Government to determine if the Offeror’s approach meets the requirements of the solicitation. In a case where an Offeror fails to provide enough information to determine if the proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation, deficiencies, significant weaknesses, weaknesses, or uncertainties may be assessed.

The Government will evaluate the following ML subfactors:

5.1. MLS1: The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposal demonstrates an understanding and approach to:

a) Implementing program integration elements that enables the integration of people, processes, and tools that aligns capabilities, resources, schedules, and priorities across the contract.

b) Discovering, communicating, and managing dependencies and potential impacts to critical path activities across the MIOES contract.

c) Planning, governing, integrating, and aligning activities, processes, projects, and solutions across the MIOES contract.

d) Developing, maintaining, and managing baseline solution architectures.

5.2 MLS2: The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposal demonstrates an understanding of and approach to:

a) Managing and organizing the MIOES team to enable successful execution of the MIOES requirements.

b) Partnering with MDA/IS and other MDA two-letter organizations in order to develop and maintain a transparent and collaborative relationship with the Government.

c) Developing and implementing management and leadership principles, models, processes, activities, architectures, metrics, trend analysis to manage MIOES requirements that will enable operational and cost efficiencies across the MIOES contract.

d) Understanding and meeting the management and leadership challenges associated with executing the MIOES contract.

5.3 MLS3: The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposal demonstrates an understanding of and approach to:

a) Establishing teaming and subcontracting arrangements that will enable the delivery of optimal solutions and services in terms of cost, schedule, and performance.

b) Developing and establishing processes and tools that will enable the integration of personnel, policies, and managerial procedures to allow the Offeror to function as a seamless single entity regarding how work is controlled, performed, reported, and reviewed.

c) Determining when work will be performed in-house versus hiring expertise from external sources.

d) Assessing the need for and how new teaming arrangements will be executed throughout the life of the MIOES contract.

5.4 MLS4: The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposal demonstrates an understanding ofand approach to:

a) Controlling costs throughout the life of the contract while maintaining productivity and customer satisfaction

b) Providing continuous evaluation of services.

c) Identifying and adopting innovations that will enable cost efficiencies throughout the MIOES contract.

6.0 FACTOR 3: SMALL BUSINESS

The Government will evaluate the content of the Offeror’s Small Business Participation and Commitment Plan as specified in Section L. The Government will evaluate the overall plan(s) of each Offeror as either “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable”. As part of this evaluation, the Government will assess each Offeror's extent of small business participation and commitment described in the Plan as an approach to comply with the small business utilization PWS requirement (paragraph 10.1.11).

7.0 FACTOR 4: IMCP

The Government will evaluate the overall plan(s) of each Offeror as either “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable”. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Information Management and Control Plan (IMCP) to ensure it:

1. Identifies practices, safeguards, restrictions, and accountability procedures to prevent the unnecessary transmission of CUI down the supply chain. Sharing of CUI to Subcontractors should be on a need-to-know/lawful government purpose basis minimizing the amount of CUI transmitted.

2. Verifies all NIST SP 800-171 Rev.2 security requirements are implemented and are documented within the SSP. Identifies security requirements not yet fully implemented in the POA&M and provides how these will be resolved within one year from date of contract award or a reasonable period of time as agreed to by the PCO.

3. Addresses controls in place to enforce flow down of DFARS 252.204-7012, 252.204-7019, and 252.204-7020 and Prime Contractor IMCP procedures to all applicable Subcontractors.

4. Addresses procedures for monitoring supply chain compliance with DFARS 252.204-7012, DFARS 252.204-7019, and DFARS 252.204-7020.

5. Addresses procedures for reporting a cyber-incident IAW DFARS 252.204-7012.

6. Ensures assessment results are documented in the Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS) IAW DFARS 252.204-7019.

7. Acknowledges the requirement to provide access to its facilities, systems, and personnel to perform a Government on-site assessment IAW DFARS 252.204-7020.

8. Acknowledges the requirement to complete, submit, and flow down the Supplier Compliance Supplement (SCS) to Subcontractors handling CUI. Acknowledges the requirement for Subcontractors to provide verification to their Prime that the SCS has been sent directly to the Government PCO.

An IMCP will be determined to be “Acceptable” if the plan demonstrates a sufficient approach to, and understanding of the policies/procedures identified in paragraphs 7.0 1-8 above.

An Offeror that receives an “Unacceptable” rating for the IMCP is not eligible for award.

8.0 FACTOR 5: FACILITY CLEARANCE

The Government will evaluate Volume 7 Facility Clearance (FCL) to determine whether it meets requirements as outlined below:

1. A current Facility Clearance (FCL) for the Prime Offeror, or

2. For a Joint Venture prime Offeror without its own FCL, a current FCL for each member of the Joint Venture (JV), or

3. A Plan of Action and Milestones (POA&M) demonstrating the steps required to complete and submit the FCL request (Sponsorship Package) and complete the associated tasks of the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) audit/inspection.

Offerors will be rated as “Acceptable” if one of the three requirements above are met. Offerors will be rated “Unacceptable” if they fail to meet one of the three requirements above.

Offerors rated as “Acceptable” based on submission of a POA&M rather than a current FCL, and later identified as the apparent successful Offeror will be provided a Notice of Intent to Award a Contract and must submit a FCL request (Sponsorship Package) to the DCSA. In the event DCSA does not grant an FCL (either interim of final) to the apparent successful Offeror within 65 days of the date of issuance of the Notice of Intent to Award a Contract, the Government reserves the right to withdraw the Notice of Intent to Award a Contract, re-visit the source selection, and make a new best value determination from the Offerors remaining in the competition.

An Offeror that receives an “Unacceptable” rating for the FCL is not eligible for award.

9.0 FACTOR 6: OCI MANAGEMENT PLAN

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s OCI approach to the management of OCI in a comprehensive OCI Management Plan. The Government evaluation will be based on the approach to OCI management in the following areas:

a) A description of the organizational unit and position(s) responsible for implementing the contractor’s OCI Management approach to include responsibility for overall management, oversight, and enforcement.

b) The plan to maintain and self-certify an OCI compliant environment during performance of the contract in compliance with clause H-09.

c) The procedures for detecting, eliminating, and reporting OCIs at any tier, including procedures the prime contractor will utilize to ensure its subcontractors at all tiers proactively identify and report conflicts. Procedures to ensure that throughout contract performance, the prime contractor and any of its team member shall submit a completed OCI disclosure form to MDA/ISK when submitting a proposal against any other MDA related requirement.

d) The procedures for protecting agency information that could lead to an unfair competitive advantage if disclosed; specifically, collecting disclosure agreements covering all individuals, subcontractors, and other entities with access to Agency-sensitive information, and physical safeguards.

e) Promulgation of enforcement mechanisms, procedures and training to all employees of the Prime contractor and subcontractors at all tiers, with emphasis on consequences for non-compliance.

f) Processes for identifying and eliminating potential conflicts associated with the employment of recently separated federal Government employees (military or civilian) that may have had unequal, non-public access to procurement information.

g) Identify all actual, potential, or apparent OCIs

h) Provide mitigation plan(s) for “g” above that are thorough, detailed, and substantive enough for the Agency to review (GAO C2C Solutions, Inc., B-401106.5 (Jan. 25, 2010).

An OCI Management Plan will be determined to be “Acceptable” if the plan meets the requirements of the solicitation identified in paragraphs 8.0 a-h above.

An Offeror that receives an “Unacceptable” rating for OCI Management Plan is not eligible for award.

10.0 FACTOR 7: COST AND PRICE

The Cost and 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 Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) and Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) may be considered under the Cost and Price Factor. The evaluation will include the total for all contract types.

10.1 Professional Employee Total Compensation

The Government will assess the offeror's total compensation plan as set forth in FAR 52.222-46 “Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees”. Proposals prices that are insufficient to cover direct labor costs and benefit costs plus other burdens and fee/profit, is a failure to comply with the provisions in FAR 52.222-46, Paragraph a. and will result in the proposal being rejected by the PCO in accordance with FAR 52.222-46, Paragraph d.

10.2 Reasonableness

Since the Government anticipates adequate price competition, the Government will verify price reasonableness by comparison of total 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 in accordance with DFARS 252.215-7008.

10.3 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 and reflect a clear understanding of the requirements.

For CPFF CLINs, the result of cost realism analysis is the total 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. The Government’s probable cost will result from adjustments to the proposed cost to realistic levels based on a cost realism analysis of the proposed direct and indirect rates.

10.4 Cost and Price Factor Evaluation Results

The Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) will provide the following results of its analysis of the cost/price factor to the SSA for consideration in making the best value decision.

a) Any qualitative cost issues

b) The total evaluated price for the total contract effort. The total evaluated price will consist of the sum of the following:

1. The probable cost from the application of the Offeror’s probable labor rates to the provided notional hours.

2. The evaluated composite profit/fee amounts as applied against the provided notional hours for all other requested contract types.

3. The proposed amount for the Fixed-Price Phase-in Task Order.

4. The proposed amount for the notional Fixed-Price material purchase.

5. The travel and ODC CLINs at the Government provided amount.

6. The amount of any additional costs to the Government necessary to support the Offeror’s unique approach.

image1.png