Attachment_4_-_Section_M.pdf

DARPA Physical Security Support Services HR001118R0003: Section M

M-1 Basis of Contract Award

The Government intends to award one (1) standalone contract to the offeror determined to be responsible and the best value to the Government. The best value determination will be made using a trade-off analysis of all evaluation factors. The Government may reject all proposals received in response to a solicitation, if doing so is in the best interest of the Government.

M-2 Award Without Discussions

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a), if determined to be necessary).

Therefore, the offeror's initial proposal should contain the offeror's best terms from a price/cost and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. If the Contracting Officer 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, the Contracting Officer 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 pursuant to FAR 15.306(c)(2).

M-3 Evaluation Criteria

The following evaluation factors will be considered in awarding the contract:

Factor 1 – Technical Expertise Factor 2 – Past Performance Factor 3 – Price/Cost

Factors 1 and 2 are considered equal, and when combined, are significantly more important than Factor 3. Although the non-price factors, Technical Expertise and Past Performance (Factors 1 and 2), are equal and each more important than Price/Cost (Factor 3), the importance of Price/Cost (Factor 3) will increase as non-price factors (Factors 1 and 2) of proposals become closer in merit.

M-4 Factor 1: Technical Expertise will be evaluated as follows:

i. Management Approach / Staffing Plan

Offerors will be evaluated on how well their management approach demonstrates their ability to manage the contract and support the dynamic nature and challenges of DARPA. Offerors will be evaluated on their capability to provide a high quality professional staff/team in a security services environment that can respond to all Performance Work Statement (PWS) requirements and quickly shifting emphases between work areas.

Offerors will be evaluated on how well their staffing plan demonstrates their ability to successfully staff the contract.

ii. Technical Approach

Offerors will be evaluated on how well their technical approaches will fulfill the requirements of the contract for both the individual PWS sections/subsections and as exemplars for the overall contract.

iii. Purchasing System

Offerors will be evaluated on the adequacy of their purchasing system or methods.

iv. Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP)

Offerors will be evaluated on the adequacy of their proposed QASP.

v. Key Personnel

Based on the resumes provided, offerors will be evaluated on the extent to which the Key Personnel’s education, knowledge, capabilities, experiences, security clearance, and citizenship, is relevant to and meets or exceeds their respective functional position descriptions and other minimum personnel qualifications and eligibility requirements. A proposed Program Manager’s current employment with the prime contractor or letter of intent will be rated higher. Actual resumes for the other Key Personnel positions will be evaluated the same as representative resumes.

Based on the above assessments, the offeror’s Technical Expertise will be evaluated using a Combined Technical/Risk Rating. The Combined Technical/Risk Rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings.

Combined Technical/Risk Ratings will utilize the following risk descriptions:

Adjectival Rating Description Low Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule 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 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.

Adjectival Rating Description Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

Combined Technical/Risk Evaluations will utilize the combined technical/risk ratings listed below:

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.

M-5 Factor 2: Past Performance will be evaluated as follows:

Offerors will be evaluated on their probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The past performance evaluation will consider each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying services that meet the contract’s requirements. In accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2), the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor’s performance will be considered. These are combined to establish one performance confidence assessment rating for each offeror.

Past performance information may be obtained from any other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; the Defense Contract Management Agency; and interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Fee Determining Officials.

There are three aspects that will be considered in the past performance evaluation:

i. Recency o Performed since January 1, 2015

ii. Relevancy o Similar in scope and complexity to the PWS requirements o Under government (preferably DoD) contracts with funded obligations totaling at least $4 million o Each submitted project, and potentially other past performance information found, will be categorized as one of four levels of relevancy as shown below:

Adjectival Rating Description 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.

iii. Quality o The Evaluation Team will review all past performance information collected and determine the quality of the offeror’s performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate these into the performance confidence assessment.

o A separate quality assessment rating will not be assessed; rather, the past performance confidence assessment rating is based on the offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance.

Past performance evaluations will utilize the confidence assessment ratings listed below:

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.

In the case of offerors for which there is no information on past contract performance or where past contract performance information is not available, the offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on Factor 2 Past Performance. In this case, the offeror’s past performance is unknown and assigned a performance confidence rating of “neutral.” Although the Evaluation Team will not rate an offeror that lacks recent, relevant past performance favorably or unfavorably with regard to past performance, the Source Selection Authority may determine that a “Substantial Confidence” or “Satisfactory Confidence” past performance rating is worth more than a “Neutral Confidence” past performance rating in the best value trade-off.

M-6 Factor 3: Price/Cost will be evaluated as follows:

No adjectival ratings will be utilized for evaluating price. Price analysis will include a determination of whether the proposed price is fair and reasonable. Comparison of the proposed prices is expected satisfy the requirement to perform a price analysis since competition normally establishes price reasonableness (FAR 15.305(a)(1)).

Proposals will be analyzed to determine if the prices are unbalanced (FAR 15.404-1(g)).

Proposals may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

Price analysis will include whether an awardee understands the contract requirements and has proposed a compensation plan appropriate for those requirements.

Cost realism will be limited to the Firm Fixed Price portion of the proposal and analyzed to evaluate whether the proposed cost elements are realistic for the work to be performed, reflect a clear understanding of the requirements, and are consistent with the unique methods of performance described in the offeror’s technical proposal. Results of the analysis may be used in performance risk assessments and responsibility determinations, and an unrealistic cost may result in the proposal being found unawardable. If an Offeror fails to provide adequate information to support a cost realism analysis, their proposal may be found unrealistic and unawardable. Proposals will be evaluated using the criteria in the solicitation, and the offered prices will not be adjusted as a result of the analysis.