Section_M.doc

Solicitation No. HSCGG3-10-R-PWV500

USCG-Operations Systems Center (OSC), APLES Amendment #1, 1 March 2010

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1 EVALUATION AND SOURCE SELECTION – GENERAL

(a) 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 should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a cost/price and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary.

(b) Evaluation Factors: The evaluation factors are Technical Approach, Management Approach, Quality Control, Past Performance, and Cost/Price. Section M provides a further description for each evaluation factor and sub-factors.

(c) Relative Order of Importance of Evaluation Factors: All evaluation factors other than Cost/Price are of equal importance, and when combined, are significantly more important than Cost/Price. Cost significance will increase if technical evaluations approach equivalence, possibly promoting cost to a determinative factor. The Government’s evaluation of the Technical Proposal will be done separately from the evaluation of the Cost/Price Proposal.

Award will be made to the Offeror whose proposal is determined to provide the best value to the Government after consideration of all information. For the purpose of this solicitation, “best value” is defined as the procurement process that results in the most advantageous acquisition decision for the Government and is performed through an integrated assessment and trade-off analysis between the technical and cost factors.

M.2 TECHNICAL EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUB-FACTORS

M.2.1 Factor 1: Technical Approach The Technical Proposal should address each work area in sufficient detail to demonstrate a clear understanding of the Sample Task Order, including development, enhancement, and operations and maintenance activities. General statements that the Offeror understands, can, or will perform the listed functions without supporting information will not be satisfactory. Paraphrasing the PWS or parts thereof, is similarly inadequate, as are phrases such as “standard procedures will be employed” or “well-known techniques will be used.” The Technical Approach section of the proposal should be written to enable evaluators to make a thorough evaluation as to whether the services offered adequately respond to the specific Government requirements. The Technical Proposal should clearly delineate the division of performance between the prime Contractor and the first-tier subcontractor(s), if applicable. The Offeror’s technical approach must address the sub-factors listed below:

Sub-Factor 1: Proposed technical approach supports PWS requirements for the Sample Task Order.

The Offeror’s proposal should describe in detail the proposed technical approach for addressing the PWS requirements in the Sample Task Order. The Offeror’s proposal should also demonstrate the Offeror’s ability to provide software engineering services to support current and future software engineering initiatives. The proposal should include a narrative discussion of the Offeror’s any unique aspects of the technical approach, including the approach to achieving efficiencies across the contract and all task orders issued. The proposal should include discussion of knowledge, experience and applied use of industry best practices. The Offeror’s technical approach should address the strategy for evaluating and recommending new and emerging technologies to support DHS and USCG missions and IT operations. The Offeror’s proposal should also clearly demonstrate a sound approach to, and alignment with, the DHS SELC and USCG SDLC.

Sub-Factor 2: Use of industry standard, non-proprietary tools.

The proposal should demonstrate knowledge and experience with industry standard, non-proprietary tools to support IT development/enhancement as well as operations and maintenance activities in the Sample Task Order. The proposal should address the ability to adapt the technical approach to support DHS and USCG tools. This includes those tools available under Enterprise License Agreements (ELAs) and those identified in the Sample Task Order.

M.2.2 Factor 2: Management Approach For the Sample Task Order, the Offeror’s proposal should demonstrate its management approach. Emphasis should be placed on the applied use of management controls, and IT certification concepts and policies to ensure appropriate management and execution of systems engineering operations and maintenance and development, and enhancement activities. The Offeror’s management approach should clearly demonstrate their ability to deliver services and capabilities on-time, within budget, and with the required service quality. The Offeror’s proposed organizational structure and staffing should clearly demonstrate the Offeror’s ability to successfully accomplish all tasking in the Sample Task Order.

The Offeror’s proposal should include a Staffing Matix, as described in the APLES IDIQ Performance Work Statement (PWS). The Staffing Matrix should clearly indicate a mapping of Contractor proposed labor categories as compared to the Government recommended labor category titles provided in Attachment 7 of the APLES IDIQ PWS.

The Offeror’s proposal should identify current information technology certifications held by key personnel proposed, and address the extent to which the proposed key personnel have committed themselves to work on this effort. If the key personnel have worked on any of the contracts used in past performance, identification of those contracts and the role of key personnel should be stated. The Offeror’s proposal should also include position descriptions for each labor category and all levels of personnel proposed.

Sub-Factor 1: Management organization and business model.

The Offeror will be evaluated on their overall management organization and business model for accomplishing the requirements of the Sample Task Order. The proposal should address the autonomy of the on-site Contract Program Manager with respect to management of all personnel, subcontractors, and overall execution of tasking for the Sample Task Order. The Offeror’s proposed organization and business model should demonstrate relevant aspects including, but not limited to: proposed plan for utilizing Integrated Product Teams (IPTs), proposed approach to project planning and scheduling, tools for monitoring, controlling and reporting progress (including the progress of subcontractors), and the proposed on-site management team for the prime contractor and all proposed subcontractors. The Offeror’s proposal should describe the role of all proposed subcontractors in the overall management and execution of the Sample Task Order.

Sub-Factor 2: Proposed organizational structure and staffing.

The Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated on their proposed organizational and staffing structure, to include: (1) staffing levels that align personnel by proposed task and proposed labor category, and (2) staffing information to support their proposed level of effort for the tasking detailed in the Sample Task Order. The Offeror will also be evaluated on the qualifications, education, experience, and availability of proposed key personnel. Resumes for all key personnel, including past and/or current experience, education, certifications, and/or training, along with Letters of Commitment shall be submitted as part of the Offeror’s proposal. The Offeror’s proposed staffing structure should specifically address the Offeror’s approach to staffing positions requiring TS and/or TS/SCI clearances to support certain classified work at the OSC as described in the Sample Task Order. The Offeror should describe their approach to recruiting and retaining technically qualified personnel, filling vacancies, and maintaining performance and quality of services during employee absences.

M.2.3 Factor 3: Quality Control The Offeror’s proposal should describe their corporate quality control program and how the corporate office will evaluate on-site quality control efforts for the Sample Task Order. Quality control should address the method of ensuring the quality of delivered IT services and capabilities, as well as the accuracy of cost, labor, and invoice projections. The quality control program narrative should also include a discussion of the proposed methods for ensuring cost accountability through the use of efficient and effective solutions and alternatives.

Sub-Factor 1: Quality Control & Performance Monitoring.

The Offeror will be evaluated on their proposed Quality Control Program. The Program should describe the Offeror’s ability to effectively utilize time, material and staff hours in an equitable manner to achieve the greatest results with a minimum of time and effort. The Program should likewise address the Offeror’s approach to continuous improvement, capturing lessons learned, and sharing these lessons learned across all Integrated Product Teams (IPTs) assigned to the Sample Task Order. The Offeror should describe the proposed on-site quality control process, including methods of monitoring performance to meet acceptable quality levels identified in the Sample Task Order, as well as established performance metrics, and should propose additional measurable requirements and corresponding performance metrics. Offerors should NOT submit a Quality Control Plan with their proposal. A comprehensive Quality Control Plan supporting the Sample Task Order requirements will be required after Contract award.

M.2.4 Factor 4: Past Performance The Offeror’s recent and relevant performance of work similar in size, content, and complexity to the requirements of the Sample Task Order will be evaluated. This evaluation will include past performance of the Prime and all first-tier Subcontractors. The evaluation will consider the Offeror’s inputs and responses from the Offeror’s customers and references. In accordance with the FAR, the Government may supplement the information contained in the proposal with information obtained from other Government organizations and personnel, commercial sources, public information sources, and if applicable, data gathered during the discussion phase of the evaluation. Emphasis will be given to the extent of direct experience and quality of past performance on previous contracts that are recent and relevant to the effort defined in this solicitation.

The Government will evaluate past performance and assign one of the following adjectival ratings as defined below:

Superior: The Offeror’s relevant past performance is of exceptional merit and highly pertinent to the requirements of the Sample Task Order. All records indicate exemplary performance in a timely, efficient, and economical manner; very minor (if any) problems with no adverse effect on overall contract performance. Past performance clearly demonstrates the Offeror’s successful experience in performing contracts of similar size and scope. Based on the Offeror’s performance record, there is an extremely high level of confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort, and be responsive to the requirements of the Sample Task Order.

Satisfactory: The Offeror’s relevant past performance is of acceptable merit and pertinent to the requirements of the Sample Task Order. All records indicate effective performance and responsiveness to requirements; a few reportable problems, but with little adverse effect on overall performance. Past performance demonstrates Offeror’s experience in performing contracts of similar size and scope. Based on the Offeror’s performance record, there is a moderate level of confidence, that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort and be responsive to the requirements of the Sample Task Order.

Unsatisfactory: The Offeror’s relevant past performance is not pertinent to the requirements of the Sample Task Order. In one or more areas, problems have adversely affected or impacted overall performance. Past performance fails to demonstrate Offeror’s experience in performing contracts of similar size and scope. Based on the Offeror’s performance record, there is a low level of confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral: In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the Offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance {See FAR 15.305(a)(2)(ii) and (iv)}.

M.2.5 Factor 5: Cost/Price

Offerors are to submit cost/price proposals that provide complete pricing as required to comply with Section L, Attachment 4. Offerors are advised that pricing should be:

(a) Realistic for the work to be performed;

(b) Reflect a clear understanding of the requirements of the Sample Task Order;

(c) Consistent with the various elements of the Offeror’s technical proposal.

Cost/Price will not be rated but will be evaluated with respect to completeness and reasonableness based on information submitted in the Offeror’s cost proposal. The Cost Templates provided in Section L, Attachment 4 will be used in the evaluation. For the purposes of evaluation, these templates require submission of information other than cost and pricing data (See FAR 15.403-3) supporting the derivation of proposed costs. The overall evaluated cost to the Government may become the determining factor for award of the contract as proposals become more equal based on the evaluation of the non-cost factors.

The USCG will use the factors below to evaluate all proposals for the Phase-In, Base, and all Option Periods. The proposed labor skill mix associated with the proposed labor rates will be analyzed to determine if the prices proposed for the periods of performance are reasonable and realistic for the work described in the Sample Task Order.

The evaluation of the Offeror’s cost proposals will consider the following:

(1) Completeness

The cost proposals will be evaluated as to completeness, including the adequacy of supporting data. This includes the identification, estimation, and documentation of elements of direct and indirect costs. The cost proposals must be prepared and supported in accordance with Section L, Attachment 4.

(2) Reasonableness

The cost proposals will be evaluated for the reasonableness of the overall cost/price and the individual cost elements. This evaluation will determine if costs or elements of costs of the Offerors’ proposals are reasonableness given the nature of the work to be performed in the Sample Task Order, and the supporting explanations and information provided.

M.3 52.217-5 EVALUATION OF OPTIONS (JULY 1990)

Except when it is determined in accordance with FAR 17.206(b) not to be in the Government’s best interests, the Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirements. Evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).