TEAMS-Next C3PO Sec M 20 Feb 20.pdf

Approved for Public Release

20-MDA-10386 (20 Feb 20)

HQ0858-20-R-0001

TEAMS-Next

Contracting, Compliance, Cost/Price and Operations

(C3PO)

Section M

Evaluation Factors for Award

20 February 2020

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: PAST PERFORMANCE

8.0 FACTOR 5: 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 (IAW) the criteria specified in this section. The Government intends to award without discussions. Therefore, the

Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms for each factor/subfactor. The

Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. Evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s). The Government reserves the right to make an award or no award.

2.0 BASIS FOR AWARD

2.1 Best Value Tradeoff

This is a best-value, competitive source selection conducted IAW the Federal Acquisition

Regulation (FAR) subpart 15.3, as supplemented by the Defense FAR Supplement (DFARS) subpart 215.3 and MDA Manual 5013.06-M, Source Selection Procedures. To be eligible for award, the Offeror must be deemed responsible in accordance with FAR 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 IAW

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 high or 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 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 five (5) subfactors: Source

Selection and Policy Support (MCS1), Contract Cost/Pricing Support (MCS2), Acquisition

Support (MCS3), E-Business Support (MCS4), and Human Capital Management (MCS5). 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. However, the significance of Cost and Price as an evaluation factor will increase with the degree of equality in overall merit of competing proposals in meeting solicitation requirements. 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

Information Management and Control Plan (IMCP) factor and Organizational Conflict of Interest

(OCI) Management Plan factor will be evaluated as either Acceptable or Unacceptable. Any proposal with an Unacceptable IMCP or OCI Management Plan factor rating is not eligible for award.

2.7 Award may be made to a higher rated, higher priced Offeror where the Source Selection

Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the technical superiority 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 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, 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 in hard copy and electronic format).

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. The PCO reserves the right to reject proposals from Offerors which do not adequately avoid or mitigate all OCIs or are inconsistent with the C3PO OCI restrictions. If an OCI is not adequately resolved, the PCO reserves the right to 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 likely 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): Source Selection and Policy Support

Mission Capability Subfactor 2 (MCS2): Contract Cost/Pricing Support

Mission Capability Subfactor 3 (MCS3): Acquisition Support

Mission Capability Subfactor 4 (MCS4): E-Business Support

Mission Capability Subfactor 5 (MCS5): Human Capital Management

Factor 4: Past Performance

Factor 5: Cost and Price

The Factor 1 Mission Capability subfactors (MCS1, MCS2, MCS3, MCS4, and MCS5) will be evaluated using the definitions at Table M-3 and the ratings at Table M-4. The combined technical/risk evaluations shall utilize the combined technical/risk ratings listed in Table M-4 in conjunction with the risk descriptions set forth in Table M-5. Factor 4 will be evaluated using the Relevancy, Quality, and Confidence Level ratings set forth in Tables M-7, M-8, and M-9.

TABLE M-2: Acceptable/Unacceptable Factor

Acceptable/Unacceptable Factors

Factor 2: IMCP

Factor 3: OCI Management Plan

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

6. Factor 3 will be evaluated on an “Acceptable/Unacceptable” basis using the ratings at Table

M-6.

TABLE M-3: 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-4: 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-5. 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-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. The evaluation will focus on compliance with solicitation requirements. Each subfactor within the Mission

Capability factor will receive one of the combined technical/risk color ratings in Table M-4. The combined technical/risk ratings include consideration of risk, in Table M-5, in conjunction with strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies, in Table M-3, 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.

4.1 Subfactor MCS1: Source Selection and Policy Support Capability

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Source Selection and Policy Support capability based on its (inclusive of team members such as prime, subcontractor, or joint venture) approach to, and understanding of, MCS1 elements #1, #2 and #3:

MCS1 Element #1: Procurement Management Review (PMR) Support. Preparing, executing, outbriefing, and training associated with a comprehensive PMR; include approach for development and promulgation of lessons learned for future PMRs.

MCS1 Element #2: Policy Formulation and Compliance. Reviewing, formulating and promulgating contract policy from statutory, regulatory, and local (Agency) environments;

includes directives, manuals, issuances, templates, instructions, and procedures; policy compliance reviews of contract documentation, as well as policy advice to PCO and Directors of

Contracts.

MCS1 Element #3: Source Selection Advisory Support. Implementing multiple concurrent competitive source selections, to include RFP development support, exchanges with Industry, Red Team review of source selection documentation, source selection execution advisory support (including Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) caucuses, Proposal Analysis

Report (PAR), Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD) development and Source Selection

Authority (SSA) briefing), and post-award debriefing support. Consider competitive environments for services, systems, as well as non-FAR methods such as Other Transactions.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s submitted bilaterally-signed employment agreement

(contingent on contract award) and resume for the key staff position identified in MCS1 Element

#4. The Government will evaluate whether the employment agreement is bilaterally-signed and stipulates employment beginning on or before the first day of contract period of performance for this effort.

MCS1 Element #4: Key Staff Position defined as Contract Program Manager (CPM). The

Government will evaluate the resume for the CPM to ensure it includes a current Top Secret security clearance and meets the following qualifications at time of proposal submission from

SOW 4.3.1.7:

Contract Program Manager

(Key Staff Position)

SOW (para 3.1 and 3.2)

Functional Description:

BA/BS and 20 years directly related experience in federal contracting discipline

Former Head of Contracting Activity/Chief of Contracting (GS-15 equivalent or higher)

10+ years combined DoD procurement experience with ACAT I/II systems development and A&AS

Experience in internal review, formulation and promulgation of contract policy and contracting oversight/review experience

Previous Defense Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act (DAWIA) Certification Level

III in Contracting or equivalent

Note, prior to contract award, Offeror will be required to verify to the Government the availability of proposed key persons at beginning of contract period of performance; this is a condition for award.

4.2 Subfactor MCS2: Contract Cost/Pricing Support Capability

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Contract Cost/Pricing Support capability based on its (inclusive of team members such as prime/subcontractor, joint venture) approach to, and understanding of, MCS2 element #1:

MCS2 Element #1: Sole Source Procurements. Executing cost/price analysis of multi-billion dollar systems acquisitions, to include complex modeling techniques (advanced Excel functions such as SUMIF, VLOOKUP, pivot tables) as well as design and implementation of cost models for purposes of what-if analysis, negotiations support, and price objective development.

Addressing analytical approach for developing price objectives and real-time support to negotiations (to include quick-turn revisions and what-if analysis). Addressing steps in evaluating reasonableness and realism of contractor proposed price and underlying quantitative aspects of proposals (e.g., resources and rates), utilizing various methods (e.g. forecasting, learning curves, and /or regression analysis).

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s submitted bilaterally-signed employment agreement

(contingent on contract award) and resume for the key staff position identified in MCS2 Element

#2. The Government will evaluate whether the employment agreement is bilaterally-signed and stipulates employment beginning on or before the first day of contract period of performance for this effort.

MCS2 Element #2: Key Staff Position defined as Cost/Price Lead. The Government will evaluate the resume for the Cost/Price Lead to ensure it includes a current Secret security clearance and meets the following qualifications at time of proposal submission from SOW

4.3.1.7:

CTQ Cost/Price Analyst Lead (Advanced)

(Key Staff Position)

SOW (para 3.2.3)

Functional Description:

BA/BS and 20 years total relevant experience as a cost/price analyst for a DoD buying activity or DCAA Auditor; or as a cost/price analyst, proposal analyst, project control analyst, or cost accountant at DoD contractor.

10+ years’ experience conducting cost/price analysis of complex cost-type proposals for major systems development and production in a sole source environment for a DoD buying activity.

3+ years’ experience conducting cost/price analysis in competitive source selections.

Direct experience developing fully-integrated formula-driven MS Excel cost models to calculate the proposed, objective, and negotiated amounts by cost element and CLIN, with focus on VLOOKUP and SUMIFS formulas.

Experience in forecasting, learning curves, and regression analysis.

Note, prior to contract award, Offeror will be required to verify to the Government the availability of proposed key persons at beginning of contract period of performance; this is a condition for award.

4.3 Subfactor MCS3: Acquisition Support Capability

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Acquisition Support capability based on its

(inclusive of team members such as prime, subcontractor, or joint venture) approach to, and understanding of, the following MCS3 element #1:

MCS3 Element #1: Acquisition Analysis and Support. Supporting procurement operations for program planning, policy, program execution, and acquisition strategy support functions.

Providing programmatic and Acquisition Analysis across the MDA acquisition lifecycle pertaining to both acquisition of weapons systems and services.

4.4 Subfactor MCS4: E-Business Support Capability

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s E-Business Support capability based on its understanding of, the following MCS4 element #1:

MCS4 Element #1: E-Business Service Desk Support. Providing system administration, help-desk support, and user training for various E-business automated Department of Defense (DoD) systems to include the Procurement Desktop Defense (PD2)/Standard Procurement System

(SPS), the Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE), and beta.SAM.gov.

Providing fully trained and certified personnel on the first day of full contract responsibility and throughout performance.

4.5 Subfactor MCS5: Human Capital Management

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Human Capital Management capability based on its understanding of, the following MCS5 elements #1, #2 and #3:

MCS5 Element #1: Recruit Qualified Personnel. Demonstrating the process for timely recruiting and on-boarding of personnel that meet the qualifications set forth in the SOW labor competencies (SOW 4.3.1.7). Addressing processes and timelines for backfilling critical billets and approach to quickly increase staffing to support potential new mission areas.

MCS5 Element #2: Retain 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.

MCS5 Element #3: Problem Resolution Strategy. 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 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 r1 controls for its own applicable network in its System Security Plans and POAM.

g) Controls identified in the POAM 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 will be incorporated into the contract after award and shall be updated as required during the term of the contract. 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-free environment during performance of the contract by ensuring that the Prime contractor and subcontractors at all tiers do not support any MDA-funded contract requirements (whether via MDA contracts, or other

Government agency contracts which support MDA).

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.

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 failing to comply with an OCI-free policy.

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.

If an Offeror fails to demonstrate an effective approach in each of the above areas (a-f), it will be assigned an “Unacceptable” rating for OCI Management Plan. An Offeror that receives an

“Unacceptable” rating for OCI Management Plan is not eligible for award.

7.0 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. Offerors assessed with a Performance Confidence Assessment of “No Confidence” after the communications described in FAR 15.306(b)(4), if the PCO deems them necessary, will be removed from consideration for award.

In conducting this evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use past performance information provided by the Offeror, 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 from the identified contracts, the Past Performance Evaluation Team will determine an overall

Performance Confidence Assessment Rating at the factor level.

7.1 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.

7.2 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. A single relevancy rating will be assessed for each recent Past Performance Information (PPI).

In assessing relevancy, consideration will be given to the following:

a) MCS1 Element #2: Policy Formulation and Compliance

b) MCS1 Element #3: Source Selection Advisory Support

c) MCS2 Element #1: Sole Source Procurements

d) MCS3 Element #1: Acquisition Analysis and Support

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

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.

7.3 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 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. A single quality rating will be assessed for each PPI.

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 performance of areas being assessed was accomplished with few minor issues or concerns.

Very Good

Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the

Government’s benefit. The performance of areas being assessed was accomplished with few minor issues or concerns, for which the

Contractor’s corrective actions were highly effective.

Satisfactory

Performance meets minimum contractual requirements. The performance of the areas being assessed contains minor issues or concerns, for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor were effective.

Marginal

Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The performance of the areas being assessed includes significant problems, issues, or concerns for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor were only somewhat effective.

Unsatisfactory

Performance does not meet most contractual requirement. The performance of the areas being assessed includes serious problems, issues, or concerns for which the Contractor’s corrective actions were ineffective.

N/A No information or did not apply to your contract. Unable to provide assessment.

7.4 Past Performance Rating

Based on the Recency, Relevancy, and Quality ratings assessed for each PPI, an overall Past

Performance rating (as defined at Table M-9) will be assessed for each Offeror.

TABLE M-9: Factor 4 Performance Confidence Assessments Ratings

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.”

7.5 Adverse Past Performance

Adverse past performance information is defined as past performance information that supports a less than acceptable rating on any evaluation aspect or verifiable unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system. When a recent and relevant performance record indicates performance problems, the Government will consider the number and severity of the problems and the appropriateness and effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised). The Government may review more recent contracts or performance evaluations to ensure corrective actions have been implemented and to evaluate their effectiveness.

In accordance with FAR 15.306(b)(1)(i), communications must be held with any Offeror whose adverse past performance information is the determining factor preventing it from being included in the competitive range, unless the Offeror has previously had the opportunity to comment on such information. Furthermore, the PCO must discuss adverse past performance with each

Offeror still being considered for award.

8.0 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 two-year base period, 1st one-year option, 2nd one-year option, 3rd one-year option, Option CLIN 0001 “Emergent Requirements” and the 6 month option to extend services.

8.1 Professional Employee Total Compensation

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(a) and will result in the proposal being rejected by the PCO in accordance with FAR 52.222-46(d).

8.2 Affordability

An affordable proposal does not force the Government to make unacceptable budget trade-offs.

Any unaffordable proposal, including an otherwise superior proposal, may be eliminated from consideration for contract award by the SSA.

8.3 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.

8.4 Cost Realism

Cost realism analysis is the process of independently reviewing and evaluating specific elements of each Offeror’s proposed cost estimate to determine whether the estimated proposed cost elements are realistic for the work to be performed 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. Probable cost will be used to determine the best value. 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.

8.5 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.

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

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