NISS_Final_Section_M_for_posting.pdf

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

M.1 INTRODUCTION

This section states the government’s basis for evaluation of the offerors’ proposals submitted in response to the solicitation. A formal source selection process will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.3, Source Selection, and FAR 15.101, Best Value Continuum, for the National Industrial Security System (NISS). The Government reserves the right to make an award to other than the lowest priced offeror or other than the highest technically rated offeror by employing the Tradeoff Process in accordance with FAR Part 15.101-1.

M.2 BASIS FOR AWARD

The Government may award a single award contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose proposal best meets the needs of the government and whose proposed solution represents the best value after evaluation in accordance with FAR 52.215-1 and the following factors and subfactors.. The five (5) evaluation factors are: 1) Technical Capability, 2) Staffing Plan/ Key Personnel, 3) Specialized Technical Experience, 4) Past

Performance, and 5) Price/Cost. Factors one through three consist of the Technical Approach for this requirement.

The Technical Capability factor consists of two sub-factors: (1.1) Proof of Concept (PoC) and (1.2) Technical

Approach. The Specialized Technical Experience factor consists of three sub-factors: (3.1) Cross Domain Solution, (3.2) Cloud Development, and (3.3) Integration. To receive consideration for the award, the offeror must achieve an “Acceptable” rating (in accordance with the DOD Source Selection Manual Technical ratings as identified in

Table 1) or better for the elements which comprise the Technical Solution . Within the best value continuum, the

Government will employ a tradeoff analysis of cost / price and non-cost/price factors in evaluating the proposals submitted. The offeror’s initial proposal shall contain the offeror’s best terms from a cost/price and technical standpoint. The Government may award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the offeror whose offer, conforms to the solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions is determined to provide the “best value” to the Government for the overall combined NISS solution (the Basic IDIQ) and the NISS development Phase One (

Task Order 0001).

Proposals will be assessed for how well the offeror’s proposal meets the solicitation requirements. Risks associated with the offeror’s proposed solution may also be considered in accordance with the DOD Source Selection Manual

Technical Risk ratings as identified in Table one (1) . Proposals will also be assessed for the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies contained in each offer.

Proposals will be evaluated based solely on the factors contained in this solicitation. While the Government reserves the right to make an award without discussions, clarifications, if necessary will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.306.

The Government reserves the right to not award a contract from the resulting solicitation if it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government. In an instance where the Technical rating for the Technical Solution are the same, then the more significant the cost/price factor become. However, the Government will not make an award at a significantly higher overall price to the Government to achieve a slightly superior technical solution.

Offerors must satisfy the requirements described in the performance criteria, as well as other RFP requirements addressed in Section L.

M.2 FACTORS AND SUB-FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

Factor I: Technical Capability

Sub-factor 1.1: Proof Of Concept (PoC)

Sub-factor 1.2: Technical Approach

Factor II: Staffing Plan and Key Personnel

Factor III: Specialized Technical Experience

Sub-factor 3.1: Cross Domain Solution

Sub-factor 3.2: Cloud Development

Sub-factor 3.3: Integration

Factor IV: Past Performance

Factor V: Price/Cost

RELATIVE ORDER OF IMPORTANCE: The Technical Capability factor is the most important factor and is more important than all of the remaining non-price/cost factors combined. The Technical Capability factor rating will be based on the PoC sub-factor and Technical Approach sub-factor ratings. The PoC sub-factor rating is more important than the Technical Approach sub-factor rating. The Technical Capability factor is more important than the

Staffing Plan and Key Personnel factor. The Staffing Plan and Key Personnel factor is more important than the

Specialized Technical Experience factor. The Specialized Technical Experience factor is more important than the

Past Performance factor. The Past Performance factor is more important than the Price/Cost Factor. When combined, the non-price/cost factors are significantly more important than the Price/Cost factor. The Price/Cost factor will become significantly more important as the non-price/cost factors approach equality.

1. FACTOR I – TECHNICAL CAPABILITY

The Technical Capability Factor will assess the extent to which the offeror’s proposal reflects an understanding of the requirements and statement of objectives. Within the Technical Capability Factor, sub-factor 1.1 is more important than sub-factor 1.2.

The evaluation process will consider the following:

a. Subfactor 1.1: Proof of Concept (PoC): The vendors PoC will be evaluated for the following:

i. An in depth demonstration of functional capabilities as detailed within the provided initial Facility

Clearance (iFCL) Use Case document.

ii. Demonstrating an understanding of the process flows required to implement the Use Case to document the iFCL Use Case provided to present the vendor’s technical solution.

iii. Adherence to DSS Technical Standards will be evaluated for compliance with the DSS provided

Hard Dives which detail Security Technical Implementation Guides (STIGs) and configurations.

POC compliance will be assessed as Compliant, if Plan of Action and Milestones (POAMs) are provided for vulnerabilities identified in platform specific vulnerability scans.

iv. The limited need for developer customization for the total solution will be evaluated by the

Technical Solutions ability to empower SuperUsers to make the necessary changes for things like building business process workflows, enabling system notifications and prefabricated user types and permission levels. Future prefabricated workflows, notifications and canned reports will also be considered.

v. Robust analytics capability will be evaluated by the ability to build reporting from canned and customized data tables as well as assembly of report graphics and dashboards.

b. Sub-factor 1.2. Technical Approach: The extent to which the offeror’s proposal possesses and documents risk mitigating techniques to enhance successful performance. The extent to which the offeror proposes innovative solutions as well as tried and proven devices that avoids excessive or unnecessary development and customization. The extent to which the offeror demonstrates a sound and feasible approach with clearly defined milestones that can be reasonably achieved. The extent to which the offeror demonstrates an understanding of the objectives as stated in the SOO and RDD. The offeror’s ability to, identify risks, and propose satisfactory solutions that reflect the offeror’s capability to perform successfully.

i. The Schedule Management Plan and the offerors proposed Integrated Master Schedule for the

NISS Program will be evaluated by how well it enables traceability for accurately scoped project activities and notional durations captured for a successful project execution, based upon the

Governments provided WBS. The IMS should incorporate key Defense Acquisition System

(DAS) activities.

ii. The Risk Management Plan will be evaluated in accordance with the Program Management

Institute (PMI) standards and it will assess whether the offeror accounted for and mitigated to the project risks associated with their proposed Technical Solution. Risk Register, Risk Analysis

(Quality/Quantity), Matrix with proposed responses and risk triggers.

iii. The Change Management Plan will assess whether there is a formal process for coordinating changes to the project and product scope, specifically is government approval required prior to making changes. The Change management plan assessment will be on a go / no-go basis.

2. FACTOR II – Staffing Plan and Key Personnel

The Staffing Plan and Key Personnel Factor will assess the extent to which the offeror’s proposed Staffing Plan and

Key Personnel for the NISS Solution (basic contract) and Phase One proposed on the initial Task Order (0001) reflects an understanding of the requirements and statement of objectives. Within the Staffing Plan and Key

Personnel Factor, sub-factor 2.1 is equal to sub-factor 2.2.

a. Sub-factor 2.1: Staffing Plan: The extent to which the Offeror’s proposed usage of specialized expertise and labor categories which will be employed to execute the efforts identified in the RFP, including any categories which will be filled by a subcontractor. The Government will consider the realism and appropriateness of the mix of labor assigned to the functional program areas and the number of personnel employed in relation to the proposed effort. The Government will consider Offeror’s strategy to maintain full staffing, incentives to hire and retain personnel, how the contractor intends to validate contract employee education and experience to meet the minimum requirements in the SOO, and how the offeror plans to quickly adapt to changing mission requirements, priorities, and workloads without affecting the ongoing work.

b. Sub-factor 2.2: Key Personnel: The offeror’s Key Personnel resumes will be evaluated to determine if the proposed personnel has the appropriate training, experience, and or education to ensure the execution of the required work for NISS Solution in order to successfully perform the requirements as identified in the

SOO.

3. FACTOR III – Specialized Technical Experience

The Specialized Technical Experience Factor will assess the extent to which the offeror’s proposed Cross Domain

Solution, Cloud Development Experience, and Integration experience reflects an understanding of the requirements and the Statement of objectives. Within the Specialized Technical Experience Factor, all of the sub-factor 3.1 are of equal importance.

a. Sub factor 3.1: Cross Domain Solution (CDS) experience will be evaluated to ensure, the offeror has completed successful CDS implementations within the past two (2) years consisting of near real-time, bi-directional automated transfers between NIPR, SIPR, and JWICS. Successful CDS transfers with dynamic web-based streaming or data feeds is required and experience with Defense Information Systems Agency

(DISA) managed CDS is highly preferred.

b. Sub factor 3.2: Cloud Development experience will be evaluated to ensure, the offeror has completed successful cloud development utilization for software development projects. Experience with development using MilCloud services is highly preferred.

c. Sub factor 3: Integration will be evaluated to ensure, the offeror has experience integrating software applications with interfaces to customer internal and external Agency systems within a single agency.

Experience with enabling real time data exchanges between systems between two different DoD agencies is highly preferred.

4. FACTOR IV – PAST PERFORMANCE

The Government will determine how well the Offeror has performed in the execution and completion of Contracts of similar size, scope, and complexity to those identified in the solicitation. The Past Performance Factor will assess the extent to which the offeror’s past performance reflects the knowledge, technical, and project managerial proficiency. The Government will conduct a past performance assessment based on the quality, relevancy and confidence of the offeror's past performance, as well as that of its major subcontractors, as it relates to the probability of successful accomplishment of the required effort. The Government will evaluate Past Performance using the information submitted on the Past Performance Questionnaires. The Government will assess the extent to which the offeror’s past performance reflects effective methods to control schedule and cost to meet all project objectives in their past performance. The extent of satisfaction of end users with contract deliverables and overall contractor’s service as well as business-like concerns for Government’s interest will also be evaluated. Also evaluated will be the record of compliance with previous contract requirements, accuracy and timeliness of reports, technical excellence, and quality awards/certificates. The extent to which past performance reflects good operational support, reliability, and responsiveness to technical direction, initiative, and adequacy of resources will be evaluated.

The Past Performance evaluation will assess the relative risks associated with an offeror's likelihood of success in performing the solicitation's requirements as indicated by that offeror's record of past performance. Past performance information on work for State and local governments, private sector clients, and subcontractors that is similar to the Government requirement will be evaluated and considered, however, it is not equal with similar

Federal contracts. Experience with DOD/DISA is highly recommended and will be rated higher than experience with State and local governments, private sector clients, and subcontractors that is similar to the Government requirement. In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, past performance information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), including Contractor Performance Assessment

Reporting System (CPARS), using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of team members (partnership, joint venture, teaming arrangement, or parent company/subsidiary/affiliate) identified in the offeror’s proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract

Reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources not provided by the offeror.

4. FACTOR V – PRICE/COST

Price will be evaluated for price reasonableness. Cost will be evaluated for cost realism. The reasonableness of all labor rates proposed for fixed price and cost reimbursable task orders and delivery orders in the basic contract for the base year and all option periods will be evaluated. A risk assessment will also be made if out-year labor rates are significantly higher or lower than the initial year labor rates. The determination that labor rates proposed for the base and all option years are reasonable will be based on the information submitted with the offeror’s proposal, the comparison of competitive offers, and comparison of the Government’s Independent Cost Estimate.

Government’s Evaluation regarding the Option to Extend Services clause, 52.217-8: For evaluation purposes only, the Government shall evaluate the Option to Extend Services under FAR Clause 52.217-8 by adding one half of the offeror’s final year period price to the offeror’s total price.

Cost and Price Analysis: The Government will conduct a price/cost analysis on each offeror’s proposal to ensure that rates and other pricing data are accurate, complete and reasonable. A determination will be made as to whether the price/cost proposals submitted by offerors are complete in all aspects and whether the amounts submitted are calculated accurately. The determination that a total price is reasonable will be based upon information submitted with the offeror’s proposal, comparison of other competitive offers, the IGCE or other reasonable basis.

Cost proposals will be analyzed in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(d). Using one or more of the proposal analysis techniques defined in FAR 15.404, the Government, with potential assistance from the Defense Contract Audit

Agency (DCAA) and/or Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), will evaluate all offerors' direct and indirect rates and factors proposed for cost realism and reasonableness. Evaluations will consider evidence that the

Offeror can successfully perform the requirements at the proposed cost. The Government will review each offeror’s proposed escalation rates to determine if they are consistent with industry standards or the offeror’s approved

Forward Pricing Rates Agreement (FPRA).

The Government will review all proposed burden rates; e.g. profit, G&A, Overhead, Fringe, etc., for acceptability based upon industry standards or the offeror’s FPRA. As stated above, cost realism will be analyzed for cost proposals.

Failure to provide detailed costs/pricing may be grounds for proposal nonconformance. While cost/price will not be scored, it will be evaluated for cost realism and price reasonableness. Additionally, a determination will be made if there is any significant performance risk to the Government because of unrealistically low or high prices. If Price information is included in any volume other than Price, that volume will not be evaluated.

Cost and/or Price for the BASIC IDIQ CONTRACT: Cost and/or Price Factor for the NISS Solution (BASIC

IDIQ Contract) shall be addressed only in the Cost/Price Volume IV of the offeror’s submission. Comparison of the proposed cost and/or price for both the Basic IDIQ and the Initial Task Order 0001 will be considered in the overall evaluation of “best value” to the Government based upon the anticipated level of competition. The cost and/or price factor for the entire five-year ordering period (including the period up to six months in accordance with FAR

52.217-8) will be evaluated in accordance with FAR 52.217-5- Evaluation of Options (July 1990). Prospective offerors are forewarned that a proposal meeting solicitation requirements with the lowest evaluated cost may not be selected if an award to higher evaluated, higher cost/price offeror is determined to be most advantageous to the

Government.

Cost and/or Price for initial Task Order 0001: Cost and/or Price Factor for Initial Task Order 0001 shall be addressed only in the Cost/Price Volume V of the offeror’s submission. Comparison of the proposed cost and/or price is considered in the overall evaluation of “best value” to the Government based upon the anticipated level of competition.

The offerors business terms and conditions, including discounting strategies and related business elements, will be evaluated.

In evaluating the cost/price portion of each offeror’s proposals, the Government will evaluate proposed cost and/or price for completeness, reasonableness, and realism. Profit or fee will be evaluated and negotiated based on risk and shall not exceed statutory limits in accordance with FAR provision 15.404-4 and 15.404-4(b)(i), respectively, for the initial Task Order 0001 and each subsequent task order issued against the Basic IDIQ contract. In addition, a weighted guidelines analysis will be conducted to ensure fair and reasonable fee or profit.

i. Completeness Factor: The Government will evaluate each cost/pricing proposal for completeness by determining the adequacy and traceability of cost/pricing data provided for all proposal requirements.

For the cost data to be complete, the offeror, or their subcontractors or vendors, must provide all the data necessary to support the offer. The amount of data needed may vary depending on the requirements.

Reasonableness Factor: The Government will evaluate how well each offeror’s proposal supports elements of cost, work hours, Full-Time Equivalents (FTE’s) calculations, proposed direct rate derivation, loading factors and direct/indirect rates over the life of the proposed contract. Proposed rates and factors and the development of those factors will also be verified with the Defense Contract Audit Contractor (DCAA) or Defense Contract Management

Agency (DCMA) via rate checks or formal audits, as appropriate. For the cost to be reasonable, in its nature, development and amount, it should not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of a competitive business

ii. Realism Factor: In accordance with FAR 15.404-1(d), the Government will perform a cost realism analysis by independently reviewing and estimating the specific elements of each offeror’s proposed cost/price estimate to determine whether the estimated costs and prices are realistic for the work to be performed; reflect a clear understanding of proposal requirements, and are consistent with the methods of performance described in the offeror’s technical proposals. A cost realism analysis will be used to determine the probable cost of performance for each offeror. The probable cost will be determined by adjusting each offeror’s proposed cost, and fee when appropriate to reflect any additions or reductions in cost elements to realistic levels based on the results of the cost realism analysis.

For the cost to be realistic, it must reflect what it would cost the offeror to perform the effort, if performed with reasonable economy and efficiency. Cost realism evaluation includes a review of the overall costs in the offeror's proposal to determine:

If costs are realistic for the work proposed;

If costs reflect a clear understanding of the requirements; and

If costs are consistent with the various elements of the offeror's management proposal, (e.g., if the offeror's proposal identifies 25 staff-years of effort, then the estimated costs/prices should also reflect 25 staff-years of cost).

The evaluation will be based on an analysis of the cost data, the traceability of the cost to the offeror's capability data and the proposed allocation of man-hours and labor mix. Pertinent cost information, including but not limited to

DCAA or DCMA recommended rates for such costs as direct labor, overhead, G&A, and other indirect rates, as necessary and appropriate, will be used to arrive at the Government determination of the most probable cost to be incurred in the performance of this contract. If proposed costs are considered to be unrealistic, including unrealistic labor and indirect rates or the development thereof, the offeror's proposed costs may be adjusted upward or downward to reflect more realistic costs. The burden of proof for cost credibility rests with the offeror. Offerors are cautioned that to the extent proposed costs appear unrealistic; the Government may infer either a lack of understanding of the requirements, increased risk of performance, or lack of credibility on the part of the offeror.

The Realism Factor, as identified in the above, is also applicable to the BASIC IDIQ.

RATINGS:

The following adjectival ratings and assessments will be used for Factor I (Technical Capability) and Factor II

(Contractor Qualification/Experience) as defined below:

Table 1

Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses.

Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Purple Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths, which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses, which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high. Proposal is unawardable.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies.

Proposal is unawardable.

Factor IV (Past Performance) will be evaluated using the following ratings in Table 2 and 3 below. Table 2 provides rating definitions concerning the relevancy of past performance information. Table 3 provides rating definitions reflecting the quality and usefulness of the past performance information.

Table 2

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Rating Definition

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.

Table 3

Past Performance Confidence 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.

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.

Unknown Confidence

(Neutral)

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.

In order to be eligible for contract award, the offeror must pass all Mandatory Requirements listed under the table below:

MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS CHECKLIST

MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS

Pass/Fail Ratings

All offerors must have a DCAA approved Accounting System in order to receive a Cost-

Reimbursement Award

Any offeror who is required to be compliant with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)

52.230-1 and 52.230-2.

Offeror must have a written determination from the cognizant Administrative Contracting

Officer (ACO) that a required Disclosure Statement is adequate if the offeror was subject to

CAS rules and regulations in the cost accounting period in which this offer was submitted.

Subcontracting Plan (not required if offeror is a small business)

CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

52.217-5 Evaluation Of Options JUL 1990