SECTION_M_(20161212).pdf

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

CLAUSES/PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

52.217-5 Evaluation of Options JUL 1990 52.232-15 Progress Payments Not Included APR 1984

M.1. BEST VALUE AWARD CONSIDERATION

I. GENERAL INFORMATION

The Government intends to award a contract to a single responsible Offeror whose proposal represents the overall best value to the Government, price and non-price factors considered. The determination of best value will be made by using a best-value tradeoff process, as defined in FAR 15.101-1, which permits tradeoffs to be made among cost/price and non-cost/price factors by evaluating the differences in the value of the non-price factors with differences in the cost/prices proposed. In making this analysis, the Government is equally concerned with obtaining a superior technical and management approach as well as lowest overall cost/price. The Government will make this assessment through development of trade-off analyses that involve the assessment of benefits of superior performance features versus the added evaluated cost/price. In determining the best value, the Government will evaluate potential discriminators. Discriminators are defined as those aspects of an Offeror’s proposal that positively affect performance through innovative techniques, productivity enhancements, and/or more efficient methods for which the Government is willing to pay a price premium.

The Government reserves the right to select other than the lowest priced offer if it determines that to do so would result in the best value to the Government. The Government will not make an award at a significantly higher overall cost/price to achieve only slightly superior technical performance. Evaluated cost/price to the Government may become the ultimate determining factor for award of the contract as proposals are judged or determined to be more equal based on the other factors.

The Government intends to award a contract on the basis of the initial offers received, without discussions.

Therefore, each initial offer should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a cost and/or price, technical, and terms and conditions standpoint. However, if considered necessary by the Contracting Officer, discussions will be conducted, with only those Offerors determined to have a reasonable chance for award, and thus in the “competitive range”.

II. EVALUATION FACTORS

The procurement will be conducted using an evaluation process which will include the assessment of management/technical approach (including an oral presentation), past performance, and cost/price proposal submissions and will be conducted in accordance with the terms of the solicitation and applicable law and regulation. Award will be made to the Offeror whose proposal represents the best value to the Government, price and non-price factors considered.

The non-price factors are Management and Technical Approach and Past Performance. The Management and Technical Approach is more important than Past Performance. Management and Technical Approach and Past Performance when combined are approximately equal to Cost/Price.

The subfactors within each factor are of equal importance. The individual subfactors are descriptions of what will be evaluated independently under the factor. Discrete ratings will be assigned to each of these subfactors and the factor will be rated based on the merits and ratings of each of the subfactors.

The evaluation factors are described as follows:

Volume I - Management and Technical Approach

FACTOR 1 – MANAGEMENT AND TECHNICAL APPROACH (Subfactors are of equal importance)

1.1. Human Resource Management Plan

1.2. Project Management Plan

1.3. Quality Management Plan

1.4. Transition Management Plan

1.5. Oral Presentation

1.6. Conceptual Technical Approach

Volume II - Past Performance

FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE

Volume III – Cost/Price

FACTOR 3 – COST/PRICE

III. DESCRIPTION OF EVALUATION FACTORS

Factor 1: MANAGEMENT AND TECHNICAL APPROACH (Volume I)

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s proposed Management and Technical Approach demonstrates an understanding of the operations, maintenance, and other management and technical requirements of the SOW and addresses the items in Section L of this solicitation in a way that is likely to meet all the requirements defined in the solicitation.

It will also evaluate the reasonableness and likelihood of success of the Offeror’s approach to meeting these requirements. In conducting this evaluation, the Government will consider the Offeror’s capabilities within the key management focus areas as well as their proposed choice of methodologies, risk-based approaches to planning (under normal and abnormal operating conditions), efficient use of resources (including human resources, tools, equipment, and technology), key performance measures/indicators, work and cost controls, and continuous improvement. The evaluations will be based on the degree to which: 1) the management approach demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of the requirements of the Statement of Work (SOW) consistent with the objectives of each plan; 2) significant risks/hazards are understood and addressed; 3) the proposed approach reflects a realistic and balanced view of priorities given the range of services; and 4) the proposed plan leverages corporate or other capabilities to meet effectiveness and efficiency objectives.

For this Factor, an Evaluation Rating will be assigned. The Evaluation Rating evaluates the Offeror’s Technical and Management Approach for meeting the Government’s requirements. The Evaluation Rating is an assessment of compliance with the solicitation requirements and merit which considers the benefits and detriments related to program performance and operations. The degree of benefit to the Government and associated strength(s) will be considered in determining whether the Offeror’s approach and understanding of the requirements rises to a level of being outstanding. The Evaluation rating also takes into account the risk associated with the Offeror’s Technical and Management Approach in meeting the requirement, including the potential for disruption of schedule, increase in costs, degradation of performance, the need to increase Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

The following Adjectival ratings will be used in evaluating the quality of the proposed approaches and solutions.

Outstanding: The Offeror’s proposed approach and solution are exceptional, innovative, and comprehensive. The proposal meets all government requirements and exceeds many requirements. When implemented, the proposed solution is expected to result in superior achievement of the Government’s objectives. An “Outstanding” rating indicates that the proposal contains significant strengths and few or no weaknesses. Proposal risk is low; any proposal weaknesses have little or no potential to cause disruption of schedule, increase in cost, or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal government monitoring will probably minimize any difficulties.

Very Good: The Offeror’s proposed approach and solution are substantial, comprehensive and complete in all details. The proposal meets all government requirements and exceeds some requirements. The proposed solution, when implemented, is expected to skillfully achieve the Government’s objectives. A “Very Good” rating indicates that the proposal contains a number of strengths and few or no weaknesses. Any proposal weaknesses have little or no potential to cause disruption of schedule, increase in cost, or degradation of performance. Proposal risk is low, or may be medium if it is determined that the benefits of the proposed solution outweigh the increased risk. Normal contractor effort and normal government monitoring will probably minimize any difficulties.

Good: The Offeror’s proposed approach and solution are complete and detailed. The proposal meets all government requirements. When implemented, the proposed solution is likely to produce performance results meeting the Government’s objectives. A “Good” rating indicates that the proposed solution contains a number of strengths, but also some weaknesses. Approach has weaknesses that can potentially cause some disruption of schedule, increase in cost, or degradation of performance. Proposal risk is medium, or may be high if it is determined that the benefits of the proposed solution outweigh the increased risk. Special contractor emphasis and close government monitoring will probably minimize difficulties.

Marginal: The Offeror’s proposed approach and solution are complete but lacking in detail. The proposal meets most government requirements. When implemented, the proposed solution might achieve the Government’s objectives. A “Marginal” rating indicates that the proposed solution contains strengths, but also significant weaknesses. Proposal risk is high; approach has weaknesses that have the potential to cause serious disruption of schedule, increase in cost, or degradation of performance even with special contractor emphasis and close government monitoring.

Poor: The Offeror’s proposed approach and solution lack essential information. When implemented, the proposed solution is not likely to produce performance results that would meet the Government’s objectives. A “Poor” rating indicates that the weaknesses of the proposed solution significantly exceed any strengths. Proposal risk is high;

approach has weaknesses that have the potential to cause serious disruption of schedule, increase in cost, or degradation of performance even with special contractor emphasis and close government monitoring.

Unsatisfactory: The Offeror’s proposed approach and solution fails to meet the minimum performance or capability requirements, fails to meet the level of acceptable performance in one or more areas, and the deficiency is uncorrectable without a major revision of the approach or solution. Significant risk may be present in a number of areas. The approach or solution has significant weaknesses or deficiencies. The sum of all indicators points towards the strong likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. Proposals with an unacceptable rating will not be considered for award.

IMPORTANT NOTE—Offerors are hereby advised that during the evaluation process, an Evaluation Rating of “Unsatisfactory” may result in the entire proposal being found unacceptable and eliminated from the competition.

The Government will use the following subfactors (all of equal importance) to evaluate this factor:

1.1 Human Resource Management Plan – The Offeror will be evaluated on the extent to which their proposed plan meets the requirements of the SOW and demonstrates an understanding of the technical requirements and the magnitude of work, using the Government-provided plan template (see Technical Exhibit).

1.2 Project Management Plan - The Offeror will be evaluated on the extent to which their proposed plan meets the requirements of the SOW and demonstrates an understanding of the technical requirements and the magnitude of work, using the Government-provided plan template (see Technical Exhibit).

1.3 Quality Management Plan – The Offeror will be evaluated on the extent to which their proposed plan meets the requirements of the SOW and demonstrates an understanding of the technical requirements and the magnitude of work, using the Government-provided plan template (see Technical Exhibit).

1.4 Transition Management Plan - The Offeror will be evaluated based on the Government’s confidence that key contract transition activities, as defined in Section 3.1.7.7.1 (Phase-In Transition) of the SOW and related Technical Exhibit, can be satisfactorily completed within the ninety day contract transition period and provides the ability to monitor progress throughout the contract transition period, using the Government-provided plan template (see Technical Exhibit).

1.5 Oral Presentation – The Offeror will be evaluated on the extent to which their proposed responses (both oral and written) demonstrate an understanding of the wide range of technical requirements and challenges, its unique capabilities, its proposed innovative solutions, and a sound integrated management approach, when addressing each scenario. Responses shall align with the four lifecycle phases of emergency management in the SOW section 3.8.1 (Prepare, Respond, Recover, and Mitigate) and further demonstrate that future occurrences may be avoided, minimized or reduced through lessons learned and shall be consistent with the Offeror’s written plans submitted in response to Factor 1, above.

1.6 Conceptual Technical Approach - The Offeror’s Conceptual Technical Approach will be evaluated based on the degree to which the Offerors demonstrate a realistic understanding of the technical requirements, challenges, and risks of the project and the reasonableness of their approach to meet project objectives (see Background Information for the Conceptual Technical Approach at Section L, Appendix A).

Factor 2: PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR (Volume II)

The Government is seeking to determine whether the Offeror has the experience, demonstrated performance, and the proven current technical expertise which will enable the Offeror to consistently meet the solicitation requirements by delivering high quality and timely services and work products as defined in the SOW. The Government’s past performance evaluation considers each Offeror’s (and its associated major/critical subcontractors’ and team members) demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products or services that meet the contract’s requirements. One evaluation rating is assigned for each Offeror after evaluating the Offeror’s (and associated major/critical subcontractors’ and team members’) recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the contractual requirements. The table below describes Past Performance Ratings to be used for evaluating this factor.

Past Performance Ratings

Risk Description

Neutral No past performance is available for evaluation. Offeror has asserted that it has no directly related or similar relevant past performance experience.

Proposal may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.

Outstanding Based on the Offeror’s record of past performance, no issues, concerns, or risks are associated with receiving timely and quality services and products, effective cost control, responsive service, and contract performance. Past performance surveys indicate that the Offeror is capable of significantly exceeding the requirements of the RFP.

Good The Offeror’s record of past performance indicates that there is very little risk associated with receiving quality and timely services and products, effective cost control, responsive service, and contract performance. Past performance surveys indicate that the Offeror is capable of exceeding the requirements of the RFP.

Acceptable The Offeror’s record of past performance indicates that there are some potential risk associated with receiving quality and timely services and products, effective cost control, responsive service, and contract performance. Past performance surveys indicate that the Offeror is capable of meeting the requirements of the RFP.

Unsatisfactory The Offeror’s record of past performance indicates it is likely to have problems meeting the requirements of the RFP.

IMPORTANT NOTE—the assessment of Offeror’s past performance is separate and distinct from the Contracting Officer’s responsibility determination under FAR Part 9.1

The past performance evaluation will be based on information provided by the Offeror in their proposal, completed past performance questionnaires, and any other information obtained independently by the evaluation team, some of which are obtained through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) and/or publicly available reports, etc. The Government may also use present and/or past performance data obtained from a variety of sources, not just those contracts identified by the Offerors. The Government will review all past performance data submitted with the proposal and may contact all of the referenced companies/organizations to verify past performance information. Evaluations may include interviews with previous clients of the Offeror and team members and/or subcontractors and may include interviews with previous clients of proposed key personnel. The information gathered for past performance may also be used in the responsibility determination.

The past performance evaluation is an assessment of the Government’s confidence in the Offeror’s ability to perform the solicitation requirements. Past performance, either positive or negative, which is considered by the Government to be more closely related to the scope of this effort will be given additional consideration in the evaluation process. 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 may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance in accordance with FAR 15.305. In such cases, the Government will assign a Neutral rating. If any negative past performance is obtained, the Offeror will be given the opportunity to review the information if the Offeror has not had a prior opportunity to provide comments.

When proposals are received from Contractor entities (e.g., teams, joint ventures) specifically formed to propose on this particular acquisition, the past performance evaluation will consider each individual team member.

The completed Past Performance Questionnaires will also be used to characterize the Offeror’s performance in specific areas (quality, cost and schedule performance) in terms of the level of process maturity that has been demonstrated in the recent past (5 years), and used in assigning the overall past performance rating (see related past performance rating adjacent to each maturity level, below). For the purposes of this evaluation of past performance, the framework from the service model for Capability Maturity Model Integration - Services (CMMI) (or CMMI- SVC) will be used in assessing the maturity level of the Offeror’s service related processes. No CMMI experience or certification is required to complete this past performance assessment. The five maturity levels defined below will be used as ratings within the questionnaire:

1. Initial (Unsatisfactory) - Processes are usually ad hoc and chaotic. The organization usually does not provide a stable environment to support processes. In spite of this chaos, maturity level 1 organizations provide services that often work, but they frequently exceed the budget and schedule documented in their plans.

2. Managed (Acceptable) - Work groups establish the foundation for an organization to become an effective service provider by institutionalizing selected Project and Work Management, Support, and Service Establishment and Delivery processes. Work groups define a service strategy, create work plans, and monitor and control the work to ensure the service is delivered as planned. The service provider establishes agreements with customers and develops and manages customer and contractual requirements.

Configuration management and process and product quality assurance are institutionalized, and the service provider also develops the capability to measure and analyze process performance.

3. Defined (Good) - Service providers use defined processes for managing work. They embed tenets of project and work management and services best practices, such as service continuity and incident resolution and prevention, into the standard process set. The service provider verifies that selected work products meet their requirements and validates services to ensure they meet the needs of the customer and end user. These processes are well characterized and understood and are described in standards, procedures, tools, and methods.

4. Quantitatively Managed (Outstanding) - Service providers establish quantitative objectives for quality and process performance and use them as criteria in managing processes. Quantitative objectives are based on the needs of the customer, end users, organization, and process implementers. Quality and process performance is understood in statistical terms and is managed throughout the life of processes.

5. Optimizing (Outstanding) - The organization continually improves its processes based on a quantitative understanding of its business objectives and performance needs. The organization uses a quantitative approach to understand the variation inherent in the process and the causes of process outcomes. The organization focuses on continually improving process performance through incremental and innovative process and technological improvements.

Factor 3: COST/PRICE (Volume III)

The Government will evaluate the reasonableness and cost realism of the Offeror’s proposed costs/prices during the course of the entire contract, including the 90 day transition period. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal for reasonableness and realism in accordance with FAR 15.404.

In order to determine the reasonableness and realism, evaluation of an Offeror’s proposal may include verification of the rates proposed by the prime contractor and its subcontractors. Such verification requires a determination that both direct (i.e. labor, travel, materials) and indirect (i.e. overhead, fringe and G&A) rates and any special pricing factors are reasonable, allocable, allowable, consistent with accepted factors and FAR subpart 31.2 allowable accounting/estimating policies. The Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) or a DHS privately contracted accounting firm may be called upon to assist in the determination.

An Offeror’s cost/price proposal must be consistent with the Offeror’s proposed technical and management approaches.

Proposals that exhibit the following characteristics will be deemed to show an inherent lack of technical competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risk of the contract requirements:

• Unrealistically low or high total costs (as compared to the Government estimate and/or other competitive proposals submitted in response to this solicitation).

• Unbalanced costs/pricing, which exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly over or understated.

The Government reserves the right to reject such proposals. Also under our Cost Realism review, the Government will determine the probable cost of performance, which will be used for purposes of evaluation to determine the best value (see FAR 15.404-1(d)).

Basis for Best Value Award Decision:

The Government will use the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) of the Offeror’s proposal in the Best Value analysis when making the award decision. The TEP shall include the sum of all costs plus fees (and profits) for all priced CLINs, for the Base Year, including the 90-day Transition Period, and all Program Years (PY), thereafter. The Representative Estimate for Future Task Orders, will also be used in this TEP calculation. As such, the TEP shall be the sum of all CLINs under the CLIN SUMMARY Tab of the RFP Pricing Model Template.

The TEP will be evaluated based on the following:

• The primary means of determining the “fairness and reasonableness” of an Offeror’s proposal will be through comparison of the competitive costs offered in response to this solicitation.

• The Government may conduct cost analysis using one or more of the techniques within FAR 15.404- 1(c)(2).

• The Government will also conduct cost realism analysis in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(d) to determine whether the estimated 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 and materials described in the Offeror’s technical proposal. In evaluating cost type offers, realism of the offeror's estimated cost will be considered. "Realism of Estimated Cost" is determined by reference to the costs, which the offeror can reasonably be expected to incur in performance of the contract, in accordance with their offer. Unrealistic personnel compensation rates will be considered in the cost realism analysis, and may also be considered in the risk analysis evaluation of the Offeror’s Human Resource Management Plan.

Cost realism analysis assesses compatibility of the cost and scope of work and traceability of the estimate, assessment of the level of confidence and reliability in the estimating methodologies employed by the Offeror and whether they produce realistic proposed costs based upon Government requirements and contractor proposed performance.

• For the purpose of evaluation, an Offeror’s proposal (Cost Reimbursement Line Items, only) may be adjusted based upon the results of the Government’s cost realism analysis.

• All options (also known as Program Years (PY)) shall be evaluated in accordance with FAR 52.217-5.

IV. OTHER NOTES

A. Certificate of Insurance: The contractor’s Certificate of Insurance will be evaluated to insure compliance with FAR clause entitled "52.228-5 Insurance - Work on a Government Installation", and HSAR clause entitled “3052.228-70 Insurance”.

B. Terms of Offer: Proposals shall be prepared in accordance with the Instructions to Offerors in Section L.

Proposals not conforming to the Instructions may be removed from consideration for award. Offerors may be given an opportunity to remedy minor irregularities in their offers to make them conform to the Instructions.

C. Solicitation Amendments: The Government reserves the right to amend the terms and conditions of the RFP at any time prior to the conclusion of discussions. If the Agency does amend the RFP, the Agency will advise interested parties in accordance with the FAR.

D. Negotiations/ Discussion: The Government reserves the right to make award without negotiations or discussions. The Government reserves the right to negotiate with any and all Offerors prior to award.

Minor clerical errors may be resolved through clarifications in accordance with FAR 15.306(a) between the Government and Offeror.

E. Responsibility Determination: The Government will make determinations of Offeror responsibility prior to award in accordance with FAR Part 9.1. This determination will be based on a review of the Offerors’ business information provided as part of the management volume, cost/price volume and other appropriate information.

The Offeror’s ability to comply with Limitations on Subcontracting at FAR 52.219-14 is also part of this determination. If the Contracting Officer makes a determination of non-responsibility, he/she will refer the matter to the Small Business Administration, which will decide whether to issue a Certificate of Competency.

(End of Solicitation)