HR001123R0001 Section M - Amend 01 tracked changes.docx

HR001123R0001 Amendment 0001 Tracked Changes Section M

M.1 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD AND EVALUATION METHOD

The Government intends to award a contract or contracts resulting from this solicitation to the responsible Offeror(s) whose proposal(s) represents the best value after evaluation in accordance with the factors listed in the solicitation. The source selection process for the DARPA-wide TASS ID/IQ contracts will follow FAR 15.101, which defines best value as using any one or a combination of source selection approaches. Consistent with FAR 15.101, for the ID/IQ level contracts awarded under this Solicitation, the Highest Technically Rated Offerors with a Fair and Reasonable Price will determine the best value basis for contract awards. DARPA will select approximately seven (7) highest rated Offerors as evaluated on the non-price factors that have a fair and reasonable price.

DARPA has determined that the Highest Technically Rated Offerors with a Fair and Reasonable Price best value evaluation approach will best achieve the objective of awarding contracts to Offerors with qualities, experience, and approaches that are most important to DARPA. Proposals will be rated in accordance with the following evaluation factors, listed in descending order of importance: Factor 1: Technical Experience; Factor 2: Management Approach; Factor 3: Past Performance; Factor 4: Small Business Participation; and Factor 5: Price.

Factor 5: Price is the least important Factor and will be evaluated to determine whether the proposed price is fair and reasonable. However, where DARPA determines competing proposals to be essentially technically equal, price may become a more important factor in it determining best value between such proposals.

To be considered eligible for award, an Offeror must provide or adequately comply with the Administrative (Volume II) requirements and receive a minimum "Acceptable" rating under Factors 1 (Technical Experience), 2 (Management Approach), and 4 (Small Business Participation). Failure to meet a requirement will result in a deficiency being assessed during evaluation resulting in an "Unacceptable" rating, and the Offeror will be ineligible for award.

The following definitions will be used to document the evaluation of proposals:

· A strength is defined as an aspect of the proposal with merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the advantage of the Government during contract performance.

· A significant strength is defined as an aspect of the proposal with appreciable merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the considerable advantage of the Government during contract performance.

· A weakness is defined as a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

· A significant weakness is defined as a flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

· A deficiency is defined as 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. See FAR 15.001.

M.2 AWARD WITHOUT DISCUSSIONS

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award without discussions with Offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). Therefore, the Offeror's initial proposal should contain the Offeror's best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines discussions to be necessary. If the Contracting Officer determines 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 evaluation criteria provided for Factor 1: Technical Experience; Factor 2: Management Approach; Factor 3: Past Performance; and Factor 4: Small Business Participation will utilize adjectival ratings to document the evaluations based upon criteria established before receipt of the proposals and will ensure the evaluations are a structured process employing fair and impartial measures. No adjectival ratings will be provided for Factor 5: Price. Evaluators will not compare one proposal against another but evaluate each proposal on how well the Offeror meets the factors stated in this solicitation. Evaluators will then prepare a narrative description of the strengths and weaknesses and identify risk areas lacking appropriate detail to support the proposal's rating for Factors 1, 2, and 4. Factor 3: Past Performance will be rated against the Past Performance Information Submissions, CPARS data, any questionnaires received by the Government, and any other information available to the Government.

The evaluation process will provide the necessary analysis of the proposals, allowing the Source Selection Authority to complete a comparative analysis using the evaluation scheme discussed in Section M.1 and decide which proposals are the most highly rated.

M.3.1 FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL EXPERIENCE

The Government will evaluate how well the Offerors' technical experience in exemplar PWS Sections 7.1.2., 7.2.2, and 7.9.1 (listed in order of importance) demonstrates the ability to accomplish all requirements of the PWS. Demonstrated experience specifically and directly related to the value, complexity, and nature of the Science & Technology (S&T) and Research & Development (R&D) requirements of the PWS will be rated higher. The more relevant the demonstrated experience is to the contemplated work, the more valuable the experience is to the Government. Likewise, Offerors who, within PWS area 7.1.2., demonstrate S&T and R&D expertise across the spectrum of required DARPA technical expertise (e.g., Biological Technologies, Defense Sciences, Information Innovation, Microsystems Technology, Strategic Technology, and Tactical Technology) will be rated higher.

For Factor 1, Offerors will receive a single adjectival rating in accordance with Table 4.1 below.

M.3.2 FACTOR 2: MANAGEMENT APPROACH

The Government will evaluate how well the Offeror's proposed management approach demonstrates the ability to deliver high-quality support services to accomplish all requirements of the PWS through the following:

a. Overall ID/IQ Management Plan

· Plan for managing multiple task orders and multiple subcontractors across the full range of PWS requirements.

· Program Management Team construct, qualifications, and commitment. Adequacy to manage and experience in managing ID/IQ contracts with multiple orders and multiple subcontractors, as well as their experience managing S&T and R&D programs. Program Management Teams that demonstrate higher levels of commitment will be rated higher (e.g., contingent employee with a letter of intent will be rated higher than representative employee).

b. Recruitment and Retention

· Overall staffing/hiring and subcontracting methodology and practices that will be used to address evolving DARPA needs including the historical time to accomplish subcontracts and ability to readily obtain the experience and expertise required to accomplish the full range of PWS support requirements.

· Plan to incentivize on-site, off-site, and hybrid employees with varying levels of telework available per task order and position.

· Plan for effectively retaining S&T and R&D professional support and minimizing turnover rate to avoid mission degradation.

· In accordance with FAR 52.222-46, Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees, Offerors will be evaluated on their total compensation plan and how it supports the Offeror’s overall management approach. NOTE: Price evaluation will not be conducted in this non-price factor.

c. Training

· Approach to quickly and effectively train and mentor new personnel on DARPA procedures and policy will be assessed.

d. Culture

· Methodology for measuring, strengthening, and promoting its organizational culture in a hybrid (in-person and virtual) work environment. Approach to promoting its organizational culture among its on-site, off-site, and hybrid employees, including its plan to:

· Rapidly onboard and successfully assimilate new personnel to DARPA culture, and then create, promote, and preserve a sense of community between its personnel, as well as Government and other contractor personnel, in a hybrid environment;

· Facilitate knowledge sharing across multiple contractor and Government teams supporting DARPA; and

· Ensure that provided collaboration tools (especially those listed in PWS Section 7.3.5) are available and maximally leveraged to integrate hybrid personnel.

For Factor 2, Offerors will receive a single combined Technical/Risk rating in accordance with Table 4.1 below.

M.3.3 FACTOR 3: PAST PERFORMANCE

The Government will evaluate the Offeror's performance as a prime contractor based on CPARS evaluations, Past Performance Questionnaires, and other information sources, including the Evaluators' personal experience with the Offeror.

More information on how this factor will be evaluated including recency, relevancy, and confidence ratings are contained in Section M.4.2.

Past performance within the Department of Defense (DoD) Research and Development Organizations is considered more relevant than performance within other DoD, Government, or commercial customers. Past performance related to PWS Sections 7.1.2, 7.2.2, and 7.9.1 are considered more relevant than performance related to the other PWS sections.

For Factor 3, Offerors will receive a single performance confidence assessment in accordance with Table 4.2.4 below.

M.3.4 FACTOR 4: SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION

All Offerors, with the exception of small businesses, will be evaluated on their Small Business Participation Plan. Specifically, Offerors will be evaluated on how their proposal meets or exceeds the following:

a. Extent to which small businesses, their role, and the type of commitment between the prime and small business are identified. Enforceable and in-place commitments will be rated more highly.

b. Expertise, variety, and appropriateness of work small businesses will perform.

c. Extent of participation of small business by small business type (e.g., service-disabled veteran-owned, HUBZone, small disadvantaged, and women-owned small businesses) in terms of a percentage of the total value of the acquisition. DARPA's minimum small business subcontracting goal is 24%, with the desired goal of 30%, of the total value of the acquisition.

d. Offeror's past performance in complying with the requirement at FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, and FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

e. Realism of the small business participation plan.

For Factor 4, Offerors will receive a single adjectival rating in accordance Table 4.3 below.

M.3.5 FACTOR 5: PRICE

The Government will evaluate the price proposals of the Offerors that it determines are the highest rated based on the Government's evaluation of the proposals under non-price Factors 1-4. For each of these highest rated Offerors, the Government will evaluate their price proposal to determine if it is fair and reasonable. The Government will evaluate Labor Hour rates for each labor category to determine they are fair and reasonable establishing maximum rates for Labor Hour orders (i.e., the Government will only evaluate price for the Offerors determined to be the highest technically rated. The Government will also use FAR 15.404-1 proposal analysis techniques to determine proposed maximum rates are fair and reasonable. If any of the highest rated Offerors for the non-price factors are found not to have fair and reasonable price, or not to be responsible, such Offeror(s) will not be further considered, and the next highest rated Offeror will be considered for price evaluation. Per FAR 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services, the possible 6-month extension period will be evaluated at the same rates as the Year 5 rates.

Unreasonably high proposed prices may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition. Proposals should be sufficiently detailed to demonstrate their reasonableness. The burden of showing reasonableness rests with the Offeror. Offerors are advised to clearly justify unique practices that significantly raise costs. An assessment that the proposal is not reasonable may result in the offer being unacceptable for award.

M.4 EVALUATION RATINGS TABLES

M.4.1 FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL EXPERIENCE AND FACTOR 2: MANAGEMENT APPROACH ADJECTIVAL EVALUATION RATINGS

Table 4.1.a Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method

Offerors will not receive separate adjectival risk ratings; however, the following risk descriptions will be utilized within the determination of the Combined Technical/Risk Ratings:

Table 4.1.b Risk Descriptions

M.4.2 FACTOR 3 (PAST PERFORMANCE) EVALUATION RATING AND METHODOLOGY

There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy (including context of data), and quality (including general trends in Offeror performance and source of information).

M.4.2.1 RECENCY

The recency of the Offeror's past performance as a prime contractor will be evaluated. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant, and is critical to establishing the relevancy of past performance information. For the purposes of this evaluation, recency is defined as services performed since January 1, 2018. References to performance completed prior to January 1, 2018, will not be evaluated.

M.4.2.2 RELEVANCE

The relevance of a recent effort accomplished by the Offeror as a prime contractor will be compared and evaluated to the effort being acquired through this source selection. In establishing what is relevant for the acquisition, the Offeror should consider those aspects of an Offeror's history of contract (or subcontract) performance that would provide the most context and give the greatest ability to measure whether the Offeror will successfully satisfy the current requirement. Common aspects of relevancy include, but are not limited to, the following: similarity of product/service/support (e.g., technical, analytical, studies/challenges), complexity (e.g., S&T and R&D environment), dollar value, contract type (e.g., ID/IQ contract with multiple orders), use of key personnel (for services), and extent of subcontracting/teaming.

There are four levels of relevancy as shown in Table 4.2.2 below. With respect to relevancy, more relevant past performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance.

Table 4.2.2 Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method

M.4.2.3 QUALITY OF PRODUCTS OR SERVICES

The overall quality of the Offeror's past performance as a prime contractor will be established per FAR 15.304(c)(2). The past performance evaluation conducted in support of a current source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the Offeror's past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the Offeror performed those past contracts. The Past Performance 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. A separate quality assessment rating is not required; rather, the past performance confidence assessment rating is based on the Offeror's overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance.

M.4.2.4 PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT

As a result of the recency, relevancy, and quality of performance as a prime contractor, Offerors will receive a performance confidence assessment rating. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance relevant to the other non-price factors, the resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of the Offeror's performance. Offerors for whom no recent/relevant performance information is available or the Offeror's performance record is so sparse that no meaningful performance confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned, will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance and, as a result, will receive a "Neutral Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor. 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.

Each Offeror's proposal will receive a single performance confidence assessment for Factor 3: Past Performance in accordance with the table below:

Table 4.2.4 Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method

M.4.3 FACTOR 4: SMALL BUSINESS PLAN EVALUATION RATING

Table 4.3 Small Business Rating Method

M.4.4 FACTOR 5: PRICE

Factor 5 will not receive an adjectival rating but will be evaluated per Sections M.1 and M.3.5.