HQ0858-21-R-0015_TN-SecOps CI_Final Section M_10Aug2021.pdf

Approved for Public Release

21-MDA-10929 (18 Aug 21)

HQ0858-21-R-0015

TEAMS-Next

Security Operations and Counterintelligence

Section M

Evaluation Factors for Award

August 10, 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: SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION PLAN

6.0 FACTOR 3: IMCP

7.0 FACTOR 4: OCI MANAGEMENT PLAN

8.0 FACTOR 5: FACILITY CLEARANCE

9.0 FACTOR 6: COST AND PRICE

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. This attachment will be removed upon award of the contract. The Government reserves the right to make an award or no award.

2.0 BASIS FOR AWARD

2.1 General

This is a best-value, competitive source selection conducted in accordance with the Federal

Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15, as supplemented by the Defense FAR Supplement

(DFARS) Part 215. 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.

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 orally and/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 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 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 Participation Plan (SBPP), 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” SBPP, 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 and Cost and Price. Mission Capability includes five (6) subfactors: Program

Protection (MCS1); Security and Emergency Management (MCS2); International Security

(MCS3); Counterintelligence (CI) (MCS4); Special Security Office (MCS5); and Human Capital

Management (MCS6). All Mission Capability Subfactors are of equal relative importance.

At the factor level, Mission Capability is of significantly more importance 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. The importance of Cost and

Price as an award determinant will increase as the degree of equivalence among proposals associated with the other evaluation factors increases.

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 of the higher priced Offeror outweighs the price differential. The selection decision will document tradeoffs between

Mission Capability and Cost and Price for offers with an “Acceptable” rating for SBPP, 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, 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, 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 Part 9 and DFARS

Part 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 the next 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).

The Small Business Individual Subcontracting Plan will not be evaluated. The PCO will review the Individual Subcontracting Plan for adequacy in accordance with FAR 19.705-4.

3.0 EVALUATION FACTORS AND RATING METHODOLOGY/DEFINITIONS

The Government will assess the Offeror’s proposal and its ability to perform the prospective contract successfully. The Government will assess the proposal’s relative qualities solely on the factors and subfactors specified in this solicitation (see FAR 15.305). Accordingly, 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: Mission Capability

Mission Capability Subfactor 1 (MCS1): Program Protection

Mission Capability Subfactor 2 (MCS2): Security and Emergency Management

Mission Capability Subfactor 3 (MCS3): International Security

Mission Capability Subfactor 4 (MCS4): Counterintelligence (CI)

Mission Capability Subfactor 5 (MCS5): Special Security Office (SSO)

Mission Capability Subfactor 6 (MCS6): Human Capital Management

Factor 6: Cost and Price

The Factor 1 Mission Capability Subfactors (MCS1, MCS2, MCS3, MCS4, MCS5 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

Rating 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 Factors

Acceptable/Unacceptable Factors

Factor 2: Small Business Participation

Factor 3: IMCP

Factor 4: OCI Management Plan

Factor 5: Facility Clearance

Factor 2 will be evaluated on an “Acceptable/Unacceptable” basis using the ratings at Table M-6.

TABLE M-6: Small Business Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method

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

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

Factors 3, 4, and 5 will be evaluated on an “Acceptable/Unacceptable” basis using the ratings at

Table M-7.

TABLE M-7 Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method

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 the following Mission Capability Subfactors and Elements:

4.1 Subfactor MCS1: Program Protection

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed approach to, and understanding of, the

DoD’s Program Protection requirements to accomplish the following mission tasks:

MCS1 Element #1: MDA Acquisition System Protection Program for the following:

a) Evaluating Program Protection Plans and Program Protection Implementation Plans for an Agency level organization.

b) Performing Supply Chain Risk Management threat support and analysis for an Agency level organization.

MCS1 Element #2: MDA Information Safeguards Program for the following:

a) Performing declassification reviews for an Agency level organization to validate compliance with requirements and procedures.

b) Performing Security Classification Reviews for an Agency level organization to validate classification levels and ensure no classified or controlled unclassified information is improperly released to the public.

c) Developing Security Classification Guides to validate proper format, identify horizontal classification issues, and evaluate security classification issues.

4.2 Subfactor MCS2: Security and Emergency Management

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to, and understanding of, the

Government’s Security and Emergency Management requirements to accomplish the following mission tasks:

MCS2 Element #1: Antiterrorism/Force Protection (AT/FP): Performing AT/FP risk management by:

a) Assessing threats

b) Assessing criticality of assets

c) Assessing vulnerabilities

d) Performing risk analysis

MCS2 Element #2: Physical Security:

a) Planning and assessment of a Physical Security Program

b) Reviewing and assessment of construction design documentation

c) Executing Physical Security Site Surveys for controlled facility designation and Open

Storage area certification

d) Conducting Performance Verification Testing and Acceptance

MCS2 Element #3: Emergency Management and Continuity of Operations (EM/COOP):

a) Implementing Occupant Emergency Plan

b) Providing or coordinating emergency response and preparedness training, exercises, and assistance.

c) Developing and implementing emergency management standards, regulations, practices, training, and procedures to identify, minimize or eliminate hazards and threats.

MCS2 Element #4: Test Security:

a) Implementing the DoD Mission Assurance (MA) Construct

b) Administrating security support for MDS test events

4.3 Subfactor MCS3: International Security

Government’s International Security requirements to accomplish the following mission tasks:

MCS3 Element #1: Foreign Disclosure Case Processing and Disclosure Policy Development and

Execution:

a) Providing analysis using DoD and MDA disclosure policies to develop MDA positions on proposed disclosures/releases of MDA classified and controlled unclassified information to foreign countries and international organizations. Coordinating with internal and external agency Subject Matter Experts (SMEs), track case progress, and review all responses for completeness and accuracy. Preparing recommended MDA foreign disclosure positions for Government review/approval for the disclosure/release of

MDA information to foreign countries and international organizations.

b) Providing analysis, review for completeness and accuracy, and assist in the development of draft and associated Disclosure Policy Program documents, specifically International

Agreements and Delegated Disclosure Authority Letters. Coordinating with internal and external agency SMEs.

MCS3 Element #2: Export License, International Trafficking in Arms Regulations (ITAR)

Exemption and Foreign Visits:

a) Providing analysis, development, and reviews for completeness and accuracy of MDA positions on Export Licenses, ITAR Exemptions, and Foreign Visit requests using current policies.

b) Preparing draft MDA positions, coordinating with MDA SMEs, tracking case progress, and submitting to DI/DIS Government for approval. Reviewing DoD policies and guidelines for Export License requests and providing comments/recommendations for

Government approval.

MCS3 Element #3: Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) Case

Execution and Small Business Innovative Research (SBIRS) Case Execution – Providing analysis support to the DIS, International Security Division

a) Analyzing CFIUS requests; developing and preparing CFIUS case assessments;

coordinating and reviewing agency positions; and preparing draft CFIUS positions, utilizing current policies, for DI/DIS Government review and approval.

b) Analyzing SBIR foreign participation requests; coordinating and reviewing agency positions; and preparing recommended positions and draft SBIR Memorandums for

DI/DIS Government review and approval.

4.4 Subfactor MCS4: Counterintelligence (CI)

Government’s Counterintelligence (CI) requirements to accomplish the following mission tasks:

MCS4 Element #1: CI Functional Services – Developing a Research, Development, and

Acquisition (RDA) CI Support Plan.

MCS4 Element #2: Support to CI Research and Analysis and Production (A&P) - Researching and analyzing raw intelligence information, and submitting collection requirements to fill intelligence gaps.

MCS4 Element #3: Support Technical Surveillance Countermeasures (TSCM) and TEMPEST–

Conducting Fully-Instrumented TSCM and TEMPEST Surveys in Continental United States

(CONUS) and Outside the Continental United States (OCONUS)

MCS4 Element #4: Cyber Forensics Laboratory (CFL) – Supporting all efforts related to digital forensic examinations, network forensics, log analysis, malware analysis, and cyber investigations.

4.5 Subfactor MCS5: Special Security Office (SSO)

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to, and understanding of, the Special

Security Office requirements to accomplish the following mission tasks:

MCS5 Element #1: Special Security Office Functional Services

a) Assisting with management and implementation of the Defense Special Security System within MDA.

b) Reviewing SCI access nomination packages. Processing nominations in accordance with current DoD and Intelligence Community guidelines. Conducting and documenting subject pre-screening interviews and reviewing documentation for potential adverse or derogatory information. Processing eligibility upgrades with the DoD Consolidated

Adjudications facility.

c) Assisting with technical and programmatic issues in support of the sensitive compartmented information facilities (SCIF) accreditation process to include construction and modification. Assisting customers with SCIF documentation, and management and operations of their facilities.

MCS5 Element #2: Personnel Security Program Functional Services - Assisting in the administration of the MDA Personnel Security Program. Supporting MDA’s implementation of procedures and requirements of the DoD Personnel Security Program.

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). Addressing processes and timelines for backfilling critical billets and approach to quickly increase staffing to support potential new mission areas.

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

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: SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION PLAN

The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s Small Business Participation Plan to determine if it indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the small business objectives, and assign a rating of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” as defined at Table M-6.

The evaluation will consider whether the proposed Small Business Participation Plan comprehensively addresses the five aspects (a - e) of a Small Business Participation Plan as specified in Section L, by providing specific details of how the Offeror will use small business at the first tier subcontract level throughout the period of performance of the contract, including all options:

a) Credible methodology used to develop proposed total contract value dollar and percentage goals to meet or exceed small business goals established for the acquisition as specified in

Table L-3.

b) Specific initiatives and tools that will be employed under the contract to enhance small business participation and strengthen the industrial base MDA relies on for Missile Defense

System.

c) Small business objectives designed to increase use of qualified small businesses to enhance readiness and sustainment, to increase missile defense engagement capability and capacity to outpace evolving threats, and to leverage technologies to increase speed of delivery of new capability to address evolving missile threats.

d) The extent of enforceable commitments to small businesses named in the proposal, NAICS code and current business size as listed in the System for Award Management (SAM), product/service to be performed, dollar value, timeframe, and nature of commitment to the small business participation planned for the base and each option period of this acquisition.

e) Proper flow-down of small business requirements, process management, and performance assessments of small business participation at lower tiers. If applicable, the process to ensure timely and accurate small business subcontract reporting via Electronic Subcontracting

Reporting System (eSRS).

An Offeror that receives an “Unacceptable” rating for Small Business Participation is not eligible for award.

6.0 FACTOR 3: IMCP

The Government will evaluate the overall plan(s) of each Offeror as either “Acceptable” or

“Unacceptable” as defined at Table M-7. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s

Information Management and Control Plan (IMCP) to determine whether it meets the requirements as outlined below:

a) 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 basis minimizing the amount of CUI transmitted.

b) Verifies all NIST SP 800-171 Rev.2 requirements are implemented and are documented within the System Security Plan (SSP). Requirements not yet implemented are identified in the POA&M and should be resolved within one year from contract award or a reasonable period of time agreed to by the contracting officer.

c) 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.

d) Addresses procedures for monitoring supply chain compliance with DFARS 252.204-

7012, DFARS 252.204-7019, and DFARS 252.204-7020.

e) Addresses procedures for reporting a cyber-incident reporting IAW DFARS 252.204-

7012.

f) Ensures assessment results are documented in the Supplier Performance Risk System

(SPRS) IAW DFARS 252.204-7019.

g) Acknowledges the requirement to provide access to its facilities, systems, and personnel to perform a Government onsite assessment IAW DFARS 252.204-7020.

An IMCP will be determined to be “Acceptable” if the plan addresses the policies/procedures identified above.

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

7.0 FACTOR 4: OCI MANAGEMENT PLAN

“Unacceptable” as defined at Table M-7. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s OCI

Management Plan to determine whether it meets requirements as outlined below:

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 members shall submit a completed

OCI disclosure form to MDA/CS 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 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 7.0 a-f above.

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

8.0 FACTOR 5: FACILITY CLEARANCE

“Unacceptable” as defined at Table M-7. The Government will evaluate Volume VI, Facility

Clearance (FCL) to determine whether it meets requirements as outlined below:

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 (Sponsorship Package) 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 apparently 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 grant an FCL

(either interim of final) to the apparently 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: 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 cost/price evaluation team may be considered under the Cost and

Price Factor. The evaluation will include the 3-year base period, one 2-year option, 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 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 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.