HQ0858-21-R-0014_Section M 12May2021.pdf

Approved for Public Release 21-MDA-10824 (18 May 21)

HQ0858-21-R-0014

TEAMS-Next Program Planning and Acquisition (PP&A)

Section M Evaluation Factors for Award

May 12, 2021

1.0 INTRODUCTION

2.0 BASIS FOR AWARD

3.0 EVALUATION FACTORS AND RATING METHODOLOGY/DEFINITIONS

4.0 FACTOR 1: MISSION CAPABILITY

5.0 FACTOR 2: IMCP

6.0 FACTOR 3: OCI MANAGEMENT PLAN

7.0 FACTOR 4: FACILITY CLEARANCE

8.0 FACTOR 5: PAST PERFORMANCE

9.0 FACTOR 6: COST AND PRICE

SECTION M: EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The Government intends to award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible Offeror whose offer, conforming to the solicitation, will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered.

This attachment will be removed upon award of the contract.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

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

2.0 BASIS FOR AWARD

2.1 This is a best-value tradeoff, competitive source selection conducted in accordance with 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. The Government intends to award one contract as a result of this solicitation. Offerors shall submit one proposal. The proposal shall be discretely priced and fully compliant with all stated terms, conditions, and performance requirements set forth in this solicitation. Page limits and all other proposal preparation instructions in this RFP apply to the proposal. 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.

2.2 The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with Offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). Therefore, the Offeror’s initial proposal shall contain the Offeror’s best terms for cost and non-cost factors. When the Government pursues award without discussions, the Offerors may be given the opportunity in accordance with FAR 15.306 to clarify certain aspects of their proposals (e.g., adverse past performance information to which the Offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond) or to resolve minor or clerical errors. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) determines them to be necessary.

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. 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.

2.4 Discussions

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 business days.

Should the Government need to conduct written exchanges 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 (i.e., via e-mail) at the discretion of the PCO. The letters forwarding the ENs to the Offerors will request an e-mail or a hardcopy response. Offerors must submit responses by the time and date specified in the PCO letter accompanying the ENs.

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). Thus, such 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 The Information Management and Control Plan (IMCP), Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) Management Plan, and Facility Clearance factors will be evaluated as either Acceptable or Unacceptable. Any proposal with an Unacceptable IMCP, OCI Management Plan or Facility Clearance 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 Mission Capability, Past Performance, and Cost and Price. Mission Capability includes six (6) subfactors: Acquisition Analysis and Schedule Support (MCS1), Earned Value Support (MCS2), International Affairs Support (MCS3), MDS Foreign Military Sales (FMS) Planning (MCS4), Strategic Planning Support (MCS5), and Human Capital Management (MCS6). All Mission Capability subfactors are of equal relative importance.

At the factor level, Mission Capability is more important than Past Performance. When combined, Mission Capability and Past Performance are significantly more important than Cost and Price. Cost and Price 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.

2.7 Award may be made to a higher rated, higher priced Offeror where the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the mission capability and/or past performance of the higher priced Offeror outweighs the price differential. The selection decision will document tradeoffs between Mission Capability, Past Performance, and Cost and Price for offers with an “Acceptable” rating for IMCP, OCI Management Plan and Facility Clearance.

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 9.104 and 9.105. To be determined responsible, a prospective contractor must:

a) Have adequate financial resources to perform the contract, or the ability to obtain them.

b) Be able to comply with the required or proposed delivery or performance schedule, taking into consideration all existing commercial and governmental business commitments.

c) Have a satisfactory performance record. A prospective contractor shall not be determined responsible or non-responsible solely on the basis of a lack of relevant performance history, except as provided in FAR 9.104-2.

d) Have a satisfactory record of integrity and business ethics.

e) Have the necessary organization, experience, accounting and operational controls, and technical skills, or the ability to obtain them (including, as appropriate, such elements as production control procedures, property control systems, quality assurance measures, and safety precautions applicable to materials to be produced or services to be performed by the prospective contractor and subcontractors).

f) Have the necessary production, construction, and technical equipment and facilities, or the ability to obtain them.

g) Be otherwise qualified and eligible to receive an award under applicable laws and regulations.

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 the apparent successful Offeror is rejected due to OCI and the PCO elects to not pursue a waiver, the Government reserves the right to award to the best value of remaining Offerors that are not rejected due to OCI. Notices to Offerors of OCIs and their responses thereto are not negotiations or discussions as those terms are used in FAR 15.306(d).

To be eligible to receive an award, the Offeror’s proposal must comply with Department of Defense (DoD) Class Deviation 2019-O0003 to FAR Clause 52.219-14, Limitations on Subcontracting proposed in Volume II Executive Summary Tab 3.

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 (FAR 15.305). The ratings tables below will be used.

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

Mission Capability Subfactor 1 (MCS1): Acquisition Analysis and Schedule Support Mission Capability Subfactor 2 (MCS2): Earned Value Support Mission Capability Subfactor 3 (MCS3): International Affairs Support Mission Capability Subfactor 4 (MCS4): MDS FMS Planning Mission Capability Subfactor 5 (MCS5): Strategic Planning Support Mission Capability Subfactor 6 (MCS6): Human Capital Management

Factor 5: Past Performance Factor 6: Cost and Price

The Factor 1 Mission Capability subfactors (MCS1, MCS2, MCS3, MCS4, MSC5, and MCS6) will be evaluated using the definitions at Table M-2 and the ratings at Table M-3. The combined technical/risk evaluations shall utilize the combined technical/risk ratings listed in Table M-3 in conjunction with the risk descriptions set forth in Table M-4.

TABLE M-2: 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.

TABLE M-3: Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method

Color Rating Adjectival Rating Description

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

Purple 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.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and 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.

TABLE M-4. 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.

TABLE M-5: Acceptable/Unacceptable Factor

Acceptable/Unacceptable Factors Factor 2: IMCP Factor 3: OCI Management Plan Factor 4: Facility Clearance

Factors 2, 3 and 4 will be evaluated on an “Acceptable/Unacceptable” basis using the ratings at Table M-6.

TABLE M-6. Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method Rating Definition Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

4.0 FACTOR 1: MISSION CAPABILITY

The Government will evaluate the Mission Capability approach of each Offeror. Each subfactor within the Mission Capability factor will receive one of the combined technical/risk color ratings in Table M-3. The combined technical/risk ratings include consideration of risk, in Table M-4, in conjunction with strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies, in Table M- 2, in determining technical ratings. The Government will not roll up the Mission Capability subfactor ratings into an overall factor adjectival/color rating.

Evaluation of the Offeror’s Mission Capability 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, or weaknesses may be assessed.

The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s proposed approach to and understanding of the following Mission Capability Subfactors and Elements:

4.1 Subfactor MCS1: Acquisition Analysis and Schedule Support

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to, and understanding of support to the Government’s Acquisition, Schedule and Integration Synchronization programs, to accomplish the following mission tasks:

MCS1 Element #1: Acquisition Analysis and Support. Provide support to the Agency’s acquisition policy and program implementation of DoD and MDA Comprehensive Acquisition Processes (CAP) for: 1) Requirements Definition, 2) Acquisition Planning, 3) Strategy Development, 4) Solicitations Support, and 5) Post Award Acquisition products in a complex weapon system environment.

MCS1 Element #2: Schedule Integration and Analysis Support. Provide support to Integrated Schedule planning, development, assessment and analysis, maintenance and control, and documentation and communication to both inform program managers and senior leaders as well as assist these manager and leaders with programmatic decisions in a complex weapon system environment.

MCS1 Element #3. Integration and Synchronization Support. Provide administrative execution and analysis support to baseline change management.

4.2 Subfactor MCS2: Earned Value Support

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to, and understanding of support to the Government’s Earned Value Management (EVM), Baseline Review and Program Support, to accomplish the following mission tasks:

MCS2 Element #1: MDA Earned Value Data Analysis Support. Provide support to perform EVM cost and schedule trend analysis and reporting, to include Estimates at Completion projections, to inform program managers and senior leaders to make programmatic decisions.

MCS2 Element #2: MDA Earned Value Baseline Review Support. Provide support to plan, perform, and execute integrated baseline and programmatic reviews to gauge the health and status of program baselines, contract execution, and identify any risks and opportunities that may impact contract performance

MCS2 Element #3: MDA Earned Value Program Support. Provide support to perform EVM cost and schedule integration with other programmatic data (e.g., AGILE), identify funding and contractual impacts, and conduct EVM system surveillance, in accordance with EIA-748 Industry Guidelines and the Contractor's EVM System Description.

4.3 Subfactor MCS3: International Affairs Support

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to, and understanding of support to the Government’s International Affairs and Global Policy programs, to accomplish the following mission task:

MCS3 Element #1: International Strategy Development and Execution. Provide support to the DI Program Offices: 1) International strategic planning and development of long-term plans, 2) Development of international agreements and associated program documentation, 3) FMS case development and management, 4) International working groups, and 5) Development of executive level briefings and reports.

4.4 Subfactor MCS4: MDS Foreign Military Sales Planning

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to, and understanding of support to the Government’s Armaments Cooperation and FMS Planning and Execution programs, to accomplish the following mission tasks:

MCS4 Element #1: Armaments Cooperation Planning and Execution. Provide support to the core DI Program Office and AB International Program Office in the execution of country-specific international armaments collaboration efforts: 1) International agreement planning, development, and implementation, 2) Export licensing and technology transfer analysis, 3) Research and development, and 4) armaments co-production and technology assessments.

MCS4 Element #2: MDS FMS Planning and Execution. Provide support to the core DI Program Office and AB International Program Office with FMS: 1) Strategy planning based on policies, guidance, requirements, and historical precedent, and benefit to the U.S., 2) International strategy development, execution, and updates, 3) Strategy briefings, topical issue papers, and correspondence, 4) Policy reviews between MDA and interagency Office of the Secretary of Defense Policy (OSDP), Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition & Sustainment (OUSD)(A&S) Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) Defense Technology Security Administration (DTSA), Services, Combatant Commands (COCOMS) and the State Department.

4.5 Subfactor MCS5: Strategic Planning Support

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to, and understanding of support to the Government’s Strategic Planning Support and Operations Integration programs, to accomplish the following mission tasks:

MCS5 Element #1: Strategic Planning. Provide support to conducting agency level studies and assessments, analyzing results, developing strategic plans and recommending organizational change to leadership.

MCS5 Element #2: Operations Integration. Provide support in the following areas:

a) Agency-level corporate integration of organizational administrative processes and systems. Conduct process and procedure reviews to clearly identify existing administrative business practices that require change. Analyze results, develop strategic plan to execute changes, secure approval, and implement approved solutions.

b) Administrative execution and analysis support to baseline change management, to include oversight of business operations, baseline change request analysis, Executive-level meeting execution, Secretariat support, status tracking, and metrics reporting in support of MDA’s six Baselines (Contract, Resource, Technical, Operational, Test, and Schedule).

4.6 Subfactor MCS6: Human Capital Management

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Human Capital Management capability based on its approach to, and understanding of, the following elements:

MCS6 Element #1: Provide Qualified Personnel. Providing support personnel that meet the qualifications set forth in the SOW labor competencies (SOW 4.3.1.6). Address processes and timelines for backfilling critical and vacant billets, and approach to quickly increase staffing to support potential new mission areas.

MCS6 Element #2: Retain Qualified Personnel. Retaining qualified personnel by addressing compensation plan/benefits and other associated incentives in concert with the compensation plan portion of the Cost/Price Volume.

MCS6 Element #3: Problem Resolution Strategy. Addressing customer complaints in the following areas:

a) Unsatisfactory job performance at the employee level (e.g. lack of technical ability)

b) Unsatisfactory systemic performance (e.g. pervasive and continued unsatisfactory performance across an entire function)

c) Personnel misconduct issues (e.g. timecard fraud, computer misuse, behavior/conduct)

5.0 FACTOR 2: 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-Services (IMCP) to ensure it demonstrates an approach to, and understanding of, the policies/procedures identified below:

a) Procedures for determining the need to transmit Controlled Unclassified Information

(CUI).

b) Internal mechanisms to determine the amount of CUI deemed necessary to transmit.

c) Accountability procedures used to safeguard CUI.

d) Procedures for monitoring subcontractor compliance with DFARS 252.204-7012.

e) Procedures for reporting a cyber-incident as defined in DFARS 252.204-7012.

f) All National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 800-171 r2 controls for its own applicable network in its System Security Plans (SSPs) and Plan of Action and Milestones (POA&M).

g) Controls identified in the POA&M are resolved within one year after contract award, or a reasonable period of time agreed to by the Contracting Officer.

h) Controls in place to enforce flow down of DFARS 252.204-7012 and prime contractor IMCP procedures to all applicable subcontractors and vendors.

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 5.0 a-h above.

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

6.0 FACTOR 3: OCI MANAGEMENT PLAN

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to the management of OCI in a comprehensive OCI Management Plan. The plan shall describe 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/CS when submitting a proposal against any other MDA 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 TEAMS or TEAMS-Next information.

An OCI Management Plan will be determined to be “Acceptable” if the plan meets the requirements of the solicitation identified in paragraphs 6.0 a-f above.

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

7.0 FACTOR 4: FACILITY CLEARANCE

The Government will evaluate Volume VI, Facility Clearance (FCL) of each Offeror as either “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable”. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal to ensure contains either:

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

2. A Plan of Action and Milestones (POAM) demonstrating the steps required to complete and submit the FCL request and complete the associated tasks of the DCSA audit/inspection.

In the case of an Offeror proposing as a Joint Venture (JV) without a current FCL, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal to ensure it contains, in addition to a POAM, proof that at least one partner of the JV has a current FCL.

Offerors rated as “Acceptable” based on submission of a POAM 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 Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA). In the event DCSA does not award 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.

8.0 FACTOR 4: 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 in Table M-9.

In conducting this evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use past performance information provided by the Offeror, information 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 Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; interviews with Government POCs (e.g. Program Managers, PCOs, and Fee Determining Officials) or commercial equivalents; and the Defense Contract Management Agency.

The Government will conduct a performance assessment on recent and relevant contracts based upon the quality of the Offeror’s past performance as well as that of its subcontractors. Based on an evaluation of recency, relevancy, and quality of past performance information, the Past Performance Evaluation Team will determine an overall Performance Confidence Assessment Rating at the factor level.

8.1 Recency Assessment

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.

8.2 Relevancy Assessment

If the past performance information is recent, a 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 subcontractor(s). This area demonstrates the depth and breadth of relevant experience of the Offeror.

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 assessing relevancy, consideration will be given to the following:

a) Acquisition Analysis and Schedule Support

b) Earned Value Support

c) International Affairs Support and MDS FMS Planning

d) Strategic Planning Support

e) Human Capital Management

Relevancy for the Offeror’s past contracts will be assigned in accordance with the definitions outlined in Table M-7 below.

TABLE M-7: Factor 4 Past Performance Relevancy Rating Adjectival Rating Descriptions

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.

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 factor evaluation. A quality assessment will only be conducted against the Offerors’ contracts assessed as recent and at least somewhat relevant.

The Past Performance Evaluation Team will utilize the quality definitions in Table M-8 in assessing quality of performance relative to contract performance information obtained from other sources to include but not limited to: PPQs, PPIRS/CPARS, FAPIIS, eSRS, or other databases; interviews with Government POCs (e.g. Program Managers, PCOs, and Fee Determining Officials) or commercial equivalents; and the Defense Contract Management Agency.

TABLE M-8: Factor 4 Past Performance Quality Definitions Rating Rating Definition

Exceptional

Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

Very Good

Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

Rating Rating Definition

Satisfactory

Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

Marginal

Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor’s proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

Unsatisfactory

Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains a serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

Not Applicable No information or did not apply to your contract. Unable to provide assessment.

8.4 Past Performance Rating

Based on the Recency, Relevancy, and Quality ratings assessed for the contracts, an overall Performance Confidence Assessment (as defined at Table M-9) will be assessed for each Offeror.

TABLE M-9: Factor 4 Performance Confidence Assessments Ratings 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.

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 “Neutral Confidence.” A record of “Substantial” or “Satisfactory” Confidence will be considered more advantageous to the Government than a record of “Neutral Confidence.”

8.5 Adverse Past Performance

Adverse past performance information is: (1) data from a recent and at least somewhat relevant contract; and (2) which the Offeror has not had an opportunity to respond through a formal rating system; and (3) which negatively impacts the performance confidence assessment.

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.

9.0 FACTOR 5: 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 DCAA, DCMA, and information obtained by the past performance evaluation team may be considered under the Cost and Price Factor. The evaluation will include the 3-year base period, two 1-year options, Option CLIN 0001 “Emergent Requirements” and the 6 month option to extend services.

9.1 Professional Employee Total Compensation

As part of the Human Capital Management subfactor and the Cost/Price Factor, the Government will assess the offeror's total compensation plan as set forth in FAR 52.222-46 "Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees".

9.2 Reasonableness

Since the Government anticipates adequate price competition, the Government will 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 in accordance with DFARS 252.215-7008.

9.3 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 LOE 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. . 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.

9.4 Cost and Price Factor Evaluation Results

The 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 of all CPFF LOE CLINs plus the proposed fixed fee amounts (to include options).

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

3. The amount of any additional costs to the Government necessary to support the

Offeror’s unique approach.

8.5 Adverse Past Performance