Section_M_-_SAIL_Effort.pdf

N0042118R0045

M - (1) EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD (SERVICES)

PART A: GENERAL INFORMATION

1.0 GENERAL

The Government expects to select ONE Offeror whose proposal offers the “best value” to the Government, using the trade-off method. "Best value" means the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the

Government's estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit(s) in response to the requirement. The

Offeror is advised that the lowest priced proposal meeting the solicitation requirements may not be selected for an award if award to a higher priced Offeror is determined to be more beneficial to the Government.

However, the perceived benefits of the higher priced proposal must merit the additional price.

2.0 EVALUATION PROCESS

For all the Technical factor(s)/subfactors, a combined Technical/Risk rating will be assigned. This method reflects whether the proposal meets or does not meet the minimum requirements along with an assessment of the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies of the proposal to determine the combined Technical/Risk rating. The benefit to the Government associated with assessed strengths along with technical risk will be considered in determining whether the Offeror’s proposal rises to a level of being thorough or exceptional. Assessment of technical risk considers potential for disruption of schedule, increase in costs, degradation of performance, the need to increase Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. Offeror’s are advised that during the evaluation process, a technical factor with an “Unacceptable” Technical/Risk Rating may result in the entire proposal being found unacceptable and eliminated from the competition.

Under Past Performance, the Government will evaluate recent performance to determine how well an

Offeror has performed work similar to the work required by the solicitation. When proposals are received from joint ventures, specifically formed by the Offeror to propose on a particular acquisition, the past performance evaluation will consider each individual JV team member’s relevant past performance. After evaluating the Offeror’s past performance information, a Performance Confidence Assessment Rating will be assigned. More relevant past performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the Performance Confidence Assessment Rating than past performance of lesser relevance. In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance, the Offeror will receive a Performance Confidence Assessment Rating of “Unknown Confidence (Neutral)” which is considered a

“Neutral” rating.

3.0 EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Proposals will be evaluated using the factors (and any subfactors), listed below:

Factor 1: TECHNICAL

1.1 Understanding of the Work

1.2 Workforce

1.3 Management and Transition Plan

Factor 2: PAST PERFORMANCE

Factor 3: PRICE/COST

Technical is equal in importance to Past Performance. Additionally, the Technical factor includes three subfactors: Understanding the Work, Workforce, and Transition Plan. These three subfactors are listed in descending order or importance. All evaluation factors other than Price/Cost, when combined, are significantly more important than Price/Cost.

PART B: SPECIFIC INFORMATION

1.0 TECHNICAL

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Technical proposal to determine the Offeror’s understanding of, approach to, and ability to meet the solicitation requirements. The Government will assess the Offeror’s

Technical proposal with respect to its compliance with the solicitation requirements and the risk associated with the Offeror’s approach. The evaluation will include an assessment of the following subfactors:

1.1 Understanding of the Work

a. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s complete understanding of the work, and the methodology used to meet the requirements of the SOW based on the information provided as required by Section L of this solicitation. The Government will evaluate the responses for clarity, completeness, and realism and the extent to which the proposed approach will ensure successful accomplishment of the tasks described in the SOW.

1.2 Workforce

a. The Government will evaluate all key personnel proposed and the supporting information to determine if they contain all information required by Section L and if they meet the minimum qualification requirements. Key personnel proposed to be utilized in the performance of this effort whose qualifications exceed the minimum qualification requirements may be considered a strength if the

Government determines that the proposed qualifications will be advantageous to the Government during performance.

1.3 Management and Transition Plan

a. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed transition plan based on the responses required by Section L of this solicitation. The Offeror’s compliance with the requirements at FAR 22.12 and

FAR Clause 52.222-17 will also be evaluated, including an assessment of any alternate approaches and/or risk mitigation plans proposed by the Offeror in the event that incumbent personnel are unwilling to accept employment with the Offeror. The Government will evaluate the responses for clarity, completeness, and realism of the responses and the extent to which the proposed processes and procedures ensure a smooth transition with thirty (30) days of contract award with no less of service and minimal loss of corporate knowledge.

1.3.1 Small Business Utilization

a. The Offeror’s strategy for utilizing Small Business, Small Disadvantaged Business, Women-Owned

Small Business, HUBZone Small Business, Veteran-Owned Small Business, and Service-Disabled

Veteran-Owned Small Business concerns, compliance with any minimum required Small Business goals as identified in Section L, as well as its consistency with the proposed Small Business

Subcontracting Plan (if applicable) will be evaluated.

b. Prospective offerors are forewarned that utilization of excessive principal subcontracting/JV team members may be considered as additional proposal risk. Excessive principal subcontracting/JV team members is considered as any offeror whose team includes more than seven (7) principle subcontractor/JV team members.

2.0 PAST PERFORMANCE

There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy, and quality. The first aspect of the past performance is to evaluate the recency of the Offeror’s past performance being evaluated. Past performance will be considered recent if the contract/order has been performed within five years of the solicitation release date. Past Performance that is not recent will not be considered in the evaluation.

The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to evaluate how relevant the Past Performance being evaluated is to the requirements of this solicitation. The Government will evaluate past performance based on the similarity of the scope, magnitude and complexity in relation to the current solicitation.

The third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to evaluate the overall quality of the Offeror’s recent relevant, past performance. The Government will evaluate the Offeror, principal subcontractors, and JV team members performance and focus its evaluation on the following areas: 1) meeting technical requirements, i.e., the quality of technical performance; 2) meeting schedule requirements, e.g., on time or late delivery; 3) controlling contract cost; 4) managing the contracted effort; 5) utilization of small business; 6) regulatory compliance, and 7) the demonstrated systemic improvement actions taken to resolve past problems. A separate quality rating will not be assigned, rather the past performance confidence assessment rating is based on the Offeror’s overall record of past performance taking into account the recency, relevancy, and quality of performance.

3.0 PRICE/COST

3.1 Cost Reimbursement CLINs

Except for otherwise unacceptable proposals when awarding on initial proposals, the Government will perform a cost realism analysis to determine the most probable cost (MPC) for each applicable Offeror’s proposal. Cost realism analysis is the process of independently reviewing and evaluating specific elements of each Offeror’s proposed cost to determine whether the proposed cost is realistic for the work to be performed and are consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the

Offeror’s technical proposal. In conducting its cost realism evaluation, the Government may review the prospective Offeror’s proposed labor categories and compare the proposed rate to the average labor rate in industry or other similar rates within the same demographic zone where the work is to be performed.

Pertinent cost information, including but not limited to DCAA-recommended rates for such costs as direct labor, overhead, G&A, etc., as necessary and appropriate, will be used to arrive at the Government determination of the MPC for the performance of this contract. In addition, adjustments to the cost portion of the offer may be made to include Government costs required to accomplish the Offeror’s proposed approach (e.g., additional Government-Furnished Property/Government-Furnished Information required by the Offeror to implement its approach) with the exception of those costs to the Government that are equal to all Offerors. The MPC is an Offeror’s total cost, including fee and any additional adjustments the

Government has determined necessary to make the proposed cost realistic for all periods. The Government will use the results of its cost realism analysis to determine the MPC of performance for each Offeror. The

MPC may differ from the proposed cost. The higher of the MPC or proposed cost will be used for purposes of evaluation to determine the best value. Contract awarded value, however, will be based upon the successful Offeror’s proposed costs.

Unrealistically low costs or inconsistencies between the technical and cost proposals may be assessed as proposal risk and could be considered weaknesses under the technical factor. Therefore, any inconsistency, whether real or apparent, between the technical proposal and cost proposal should be explained in the narrative section of the cost/price proposal.

3.2 Total Professional Employee Compensation Plan

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Total Compensation Plan in accordance with FAR 52.222-46.

In accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b) (2), various price analysis techniques and procedures will be employed to ensure the prices being proposed for this requirement are fair and reasonable. To assist in the overall determination of price reasonableness, the Government will identify all instances where a proposed fully burdened labor cost exceeds $300K annually per employee. This also applies to a fully burdened subcontractor employee labor cost, inclusive of the prime contractor’s pass-through burden. An exceeded tripwire may ultimately be determined unreasonable absent justification.

3.3 Overall Summary Level for all CLINs

Normally, competition establishes price reasonableness. In limited situations, additional analysis will be required by the Government to determine reasonableness. If, after receipt of a proposal, the PCO determines that adequate price competition does not exist and a determination is made that none of the exceptions in FAR 15.403-1(b) apply, the Offeror may be required to provide certified cost and pricing data in accordance with FAR 15.403-4.

3.4 Profit and Pass-Through Rates

The Government will evaluate the proposed profit and pass-through rates for compliance with the maximum discussed in Section L, Part B, 3.0 Volume 3: Price/Cost Proposal paragraph 3.3.3(d).

Prospective Offerors are forewarned that if there are discrepancies between Section B, Attachment (P6), and Volume 3 Narrative, Section B prevails.

4.0 EVALUATION OF OPTIONS

Clause 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services, is incorporated in the solicitation. Total evaluated cost/price will also include the six month performance period permitted under the clause, to account for a situation where invoking of the clause, in whole or part, becomes necessary. Specifically, the evaluated cost/price of this six-month period will be calculated by dividing the final proposed contract year by twelve (12) to establish an estimated monthly amount; thereafter, the monthly amount will be multiplied by six to establish the estimated cost for the six (6) month option to extend services.

PART C: EVALUATION RATING AND RISK ASSESSMENT DEFINITIONS

The definitions below will be used by the Government when assessing solicitation compliance and the expected results of the Offeror's proposed approach. The appropriate adjectival rating will be assigned to each factor and subfactor, as required. The Government will utilize a combined technical/risk rating for this effort.

1.0 TECHNICAL EVALUATION RATINGS

Combined Technical Ratings: The combined technical/risk assignments are provided in the table below:

COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATING

Rating Description

Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

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.

Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate

Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATING

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.

2.0 PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

2.1 Past Performance Evaluation: The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the

Offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The past performance evaluation considers each Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements. One performance confidence assessment rating is assigned for each

Offeror after evaluating the Offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the contract requirements. There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation: The first is to evaluate the Offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the

Offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. Common aspects of relevancy include, but are not limited to, similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontracting/teaming.

2.2 Past Performance Relevancy Ratings: 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.

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.

3.0 PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT RATINGS

The Government will employ the Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method described in the table below. In the case of an Offeror without a record of recent relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown or neutral past performance.

Performance Confidence Assessment Rating: Performance Confidence Assessment rating assignments reflect the Government’s confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the solicitation’s requirements based on the Offeror’s recent and relevant past performance record.

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.

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.

4.0 OTHER DEFINITIONS

Strengths: An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

(FAR15.001)

Significant Weakness: A flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

(FAR 15.001)

Deficiency: A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increase the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. (FAR 15.001)

Recency: As it pertains to past performance information, is a measure of the time that has elapsed since the past performance reference occurred. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant.

Relevancy: As it pertains to past performance information, is a measure of the extent of similarity between the service/support effort, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and subcontract/teaming or other comparable attributes of past performance examples and the source solicitation requirements; and a measure of the likelihood that the past performance is an indicator of future performance.

Risk: As it pertains to source selection, is the potential for unsuccessful contract performance. The consideration of risk assesses the degree to which an Offeror’s proposed approach to achieving the technical factor or subfactor may involve risk of disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

Low Risk: Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Risk: Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High Risk: 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.

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