Evaluation Factor Guide Version 1.3 July 2019.docx

Version 1.3 July 2019

EVALUATION FACTOR GUIDE

for Services contracts

This guide is provided as a necessary companion resource to the Streamlined Section L & M template provisions 5252.215-9522 ALT 2 and 5252.215-9531 ALT 1 respectively and can be used with other Section L & M provisions if desired, including FAR Part 16 Fair Opportunity Task Order solicitations. This guide provides suggested non-cost evaluation factors and key subfactors addressing quality of service for the source selection. Specifically, this guide addresses Technical factors/subfactors and Past Performance relevancy descriptions for use on Services solicitations. This is a living document wherein additional technical factor/subfactor examples are intended to be added as they are endorsed by NAVAIR 3Cs (Counsel, Comptroller, Contracts). Tailoring of the sample language is encouraged, but for ease of review by the PCO and legal counsel, its recommend adding colored block text on tailored language which can be removed prior to RFP issuance.

Instructions to RFP drafters are in GREEN block text and should be deleted before submitting RFP for final review by the PCO and legal counsel.

Yellow block text denotes required fill-ins.

I. TECHNICAL EVALUATION FACTOR(S)/SUBFACTORS - Technical factors/subfactors (as applicable) address the offerors’ proposed approach to meeting the minimum requirements of the solicitation. The drafter should use the Performance Work Statement/Statement of Work and other requirements specifications as applicable to identify specific requirements that represent key areas of importance to ensure a selected Contractor can meet minimum contract requirements and that support meaningful comparison and discrimination between competing proposals. For each key performance area, the drafter should consider if there is willingness to pay extra for performance above the stated minimum requirements. Not all technical areas need to be assessed as part of a trade-off analysis, wherein meeting the minimum requirement is acceptable and there is no desire to pay a premium, these areas should be evaluated as “Go/No-Go” and not included as part of the Technical/Cost trade-off.

The following sample Technical subfactors or elements are recommended for Knowledge-based, Contractor Support Services (CSS). The sample subfactors and sample Section L & M language is drafted more from a Non-Performance based, LOE contract type, so special consideration should be used if using a Performance-based approach.

· Understanding of the Work

· Workforce/Personnel Qualifications/Key Personnel

· Management Approach (Suggest using Management Plan only when requirement is complex and could result in a high level of workforce turnover in highly skilled positions)

· Small Business Utilization required in competitions that exceed $700K and solicitations involving bundling that offer a significant opportunity for subcontracting. Not required for LPTA competitions or competitions set aside for small business concerns (including any small business socio-economic categories).

The use of Corporate Experience as an evaluation factor is possible. In consideration of utilizing this evaluation factor, the PCO must establish whether to include as a separate factor or as a subfactor or element under Technical.

SAMPLE SECTION L Language:

A. Understanding of the Work (may include as appropriate)

NOTE: Can use both SOW/PWS Approach and Sample Task or either one separately BUT it is HIGHLY recommended that you choose only one

Statement of Work/Performance Work Statement Approach:

Note: Should consider limiting this section to only the most critical tasks within the SOW/PWS which will provide discrimination between and among competing proposals.

Sample Language :

-Provide a written narrative of the Offeror’s understanding and proposed capability to perform the requirements of the following Statement of Work (SOW)/Performance Work Statement (PWS) tasks: list applicable critical tasks from SOW/PWS that will discriminate between and among offerors.

The narrative shall include the elements set forth below:

-Provide a detailed step-by-step procedure and methodology which would be used in accomplishing each of the critical tasks listed above. Note: that this language assumes that the PWS/SOW paragraphs referenced have enough detail to allow for a step-by-step process description. If that is not the case, the language above should be modified accordingly.

-Identify any risks that may impact successful performance and actions required to mitigate the risks.

Note: If not using a Management Approach subfactor, insert following here or otherwise insert in Management Approach subfactor -Provide an implementation plan that includes:

Written Response to Sample Tasks (drafter would include one or more sample tasks as appropriate).

Note: These should be tasks that are realistic and which will help discriminate between and among competing proposals. The most preferred approach would be to use actual task(s) anticipated on the prospective contract or actual requirements that could be awarded as a task order(s) on a prospective IDIQ contract .

Sample Section L language:

Each response should include the following information and follow this outline:

Adjust/delete response requirements below as deemed necessary to match the context of the Sample Task(s).

1. Team - Identify the contractor team members that need to participate in the effort; and if applicable, describe the roles and responsibilities of any subcontractors, and/or JV team members required to perform the work.

(2) Technical Approach - Provide a detailed description of the technical approach including a step-by-step procedure and methodology which would be used in accomplishing the task. Note: If using this, ensure the sample task has procedures that could afford a step-by-step description.

(3) Performance Risk Analysis - Identify contingent events inherent to the nature of the effort that could, if they were to occur, endanger satisfactory performance. Focus on critical events that are realistically likely to occur and that would pose serious problems (do not try to identify every event that could cause some minor difficulty).

(4) Work Breakdown Structure/Integrated Master Schedule - Provide a detailed schedule of events and briefly describe each activity with its inputs and outputs and the interrelationships and interdependencies among the activities.

(5) Models & Tools - Identify the models and / or other tools that would be utilized to perform the task.

(6) Identify process to track progress towards completion of task.

(7) Reports - Provide a list of recommended reports(s) to document the task.

(8) Level of Effort - Provide an outline of hours by labor category required to complete the task; do not include cost.

B. Workforce/Personnel Qualifications/Key Personnel may include as appropriate:

Sample Section L language:

Workforce - Key Personnel Resumes

For all proposed current or contingent Key Personnel, provide a resume of the work assignments, training, etc., that demonstrates the experience and specialized qualifications of each key person proposed. Resumes shall contain, at a minimum, the following information:

· Employee name

· Years of employment experience in chronological order including narrative description of duties and responsibilities

· Current position, title and employer

· Educational history

· Institution name, degree or certification earned, and year for all degrees or certifications earned

· <Insert as Applicable>Current level of security clearance and status (final, interim, or pending)

The Government may check educational background to verify degrees or certifications received.

If the qualification (i.e. education, experience) does not readily or easily compare to the minimum qualification stated in the SOW/PWS, the offeror shall provide an explanation as to the equality of the proposed qualification to meet the minimum qualification.

NOTE: Use this matrix for Performance Based service contracts as applicable( not appropriate for term Level of Effort requirements.) Some caution must be used with this approach. First, the Requirement must be adequately defined to permit offerors to propose realistically; second, the source selection evaluators must have a firm idea what the model manning level is; and third, does the Government have the people qualified to do this evaluation?

Workforce Hour Matrix Sample Language: The offeror shall provide a breakdown of hours for each individual labor category proposed for the base and each option period of performance. The offeror must submit a labor category breakdown that covers the completion of the tasks in the PWS in Section C of the solicitation in accordance with the format in the Workforce Hour Matrix (Attachment ( )) to be filled in by the specialist . Subcontractors’ and JV team members’ information shall be included under the prime contractor’s submission. The matrix shall demonstrate the Offeror’s ability to provide the required PWS services with the labor mix and hours proposed.

C. Management Approach:

NOTE: The areas below (or other areas as applicable) may be selected for your evaluation, recommend selecting minimum necessary, i.e. discriminators for award.

Sample Section L language:

- Offerors shall address the following:

(a) Adequacy of corporate management and resources to support the technical requirements of the solicitation.

(b) Proposed management roles of the Offeror’s proposed workforce and the lines of responsibility, authority, and communication through which the tasks will be managed for this requirement;

(c) Procedures to be taken to ensure quality and cost control;

(d) Plan for early identification and resolution of problems;

(e) Identification of potential performance risks and proposed risk mitigation strategies;

(f) Subcontract Management detailing how each subcontractor will be integrated and managed to ensure cohesive integration into the overall management approach; and

(g) Qualification/recruitment/retention plan and procedures that demonstrate how the Offeror will meet the minimum requirements of the SOW/PWS.

Transition Plan - The services under this solicitation are vital to the Government and must be continued without interruption. The Offeror is required to submit a written narrative delineating a transition plan that ensures a smooth workplace changeover from an incumbent with no loss of service and minimal loss of corporate knowledge. The plan should take into consideration the following elements as well as any additional elements deemed necessary by the Offeror:

(a) Work Turnover

(b) Quality Assurance

(c) Training

(d) Risk Mitigation strategies

(e) Security Requirement to include OPSEC, facility clearances, and base access

(f) Data Transfer

E. Small Business Utilization Strategy: may include as appropriate (Note to Contract Specialist - the following language is offered for the Small Business Utilization Strategy whether this criteria is a separate factor, a subfactor under Technical, or as part of another factor/subfactor under Technical . Language for the specific procurement shall be coordinated with the NAVAIR Office of Small Business Programs. This evaluation criteria is only applicable for Unrestricted Source Selections when the solicitation includes clause 52.219-9 and is not LPTA. (See DFAR 215-304)

Small Business Utilization Strategy:

Sample Section L language

(1) Small Business (SB) Utilization Strategy: All Offerors shall describe their strategies for utilizing SB Concerns in the performance of this contract, whether as a JV, teaming arrangement, or subcontractor to achieve a Government established Small Business Participation goal of no less than xx% of the total subcontracted value/total contract value (choose one), inclusive of options. Small business offerors should include themselves in addressing their strategies. Although the aforementioned stated goal represents the Small Business category, offerors shall include goals for not only Small Business, but also for Small Disadvantaged Business, Veteran-Owned Small Business, Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business, HUBZone Small Business, and Women-Owned Small Business. All goals shall be presented in both dollars and percentages in relation to total subcontracted value/total contract value (choose one). This strategy is separate from, but shall be consistent with, the SB Subcontracting Plan, if such a Plan is required.

(a) If using any of the DFARS PGI 215.304(c)(i)(A) specific evaluation factors/subfactors as identified in Section M of this guide, the following corresponding sample Section L language is provided:

(1) Offerors shall specifically identify the small business subcontractors to be utilized in performance of this contract to the maximum extent practical. For each SB concern specifically identified in the proposal, provide the SB concern’s SB subcategory (SDB, SDVOSB, WOSB, HUBZone, etc), provide the SB concern’s CAGE code (or, if not registered in System for Award Management (SAM), provide evidence of self-certification in accordance with FAR 19.703(b) as a SB concern), and the NAICS code for the work to be performed by the SB subcontractor.

(2) Offerors shall describe the extent of commitment to use such firms and provide evidence of any enforceable committments. “Enforceable commitments” include but are not limited to signed subcontracts, signed agreements to subcontract in the event the prime is awarded the contract, or other binding agreements indicating firm commitments to subcontract.

(3) Offerors shall describe the complexity and variety of the work small firms are to perform; for each SB subcontractor specifically identified, the offeror shall identify if the planned subcontract effort is considered to be of low, medium, or high complexity along with a brief rationale;

(4) Offerors shall calculate the percentage of SB subcontracting, SDB subcontracting, WOSB subcontracting, SDVOSB subcontracting, and HUBZone subcontracting in terms of the value of the total acquisition.

(2) SB Subcontracting Plans: The Large Business Offeror shall provide its SB Subcontracting Plan conforming to the requirements of FAR 19.7 and DFARS 219.7 as Annex 1, unless there is an already approved comprehensive SB Plan. The Subcontracting Plan of the successful Offeror(s) will be reviewed and approved by the PCO prior to contract award. See FAR 19.702(a) (1) Statutory Requirements, regarding failure of the apparent successful Offeror to negotiate and submit a Subcontracting Plan acceptable to the Contracting Officer. The successful Offeror’s approved Subcontracting Plan will be incorporated into the resultant contract.

(Note to Contract Specialist - paragraph (3) is required for any procurement which has a strong developmental focus, relies upon complex or state-of-the-art technologies, or when the procurement program includes SBIR/STTR in the program's technology roadmap.)

(3) SBIR Program: All Offerors (Large and Small Businesses) shall describe their use of the SB Innovation Research (SBIR) and SB Technology Transfer (STTR) Programs to insert new technologies into the proposed end item.

SECTION M language for CSS requirements:

1.0 TECHNICAL

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s 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 also include an assessment of the following:

Note to Specialist –If Understanding of the Work, Performance Work Statement/Statement of Work Approach is to be evaluated, consider using the sample language below. While this may be tailored to meet the specific requirement, the way you assess adjectival and risk ratings must match the rating definitions in Section M:

Understanding of the Work, Performance Work Statement/Statement of Work Approach: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s understanding of the work based on the information provided as required by Section L of this solicitation. The Government will assess the degree of the Offeror’s understanding of the work requirements and assess the offeror’s capability to meet contracts requirements based upon the offeror’s response to the instructions provided in Section L.

Note to Specialist –If Sample Tasks are to be evaluated, consider using the sample language below:

Sample Task(s): The Government will evaluate each offeror’s proposed approach to the Sample Task to assess its demonstrated ability to meet requirements, adequacy of its approach, understanding of requirements, perceived benefits and associated risk.

Note to Specialist –If Workforce is to be evaluated, consider using the sample language below:

The Government will evaluate all proposed Key Personnel and the supporting information to determine if they meet the minimum qualification requirements. <Stop here if this is a Go/No-Go criteria>. In addition, Key Personnel proposed to be utilized in the performance of this effort, whose labor qualifications exceed the minimum requirements in such areas as education, experience, <Insert as applicable> and security clearance levels, may be considered strengths if the additional qualification(s) is/are advantageous to the Government. <For Performance based requirements use language similar to:> The proposed workforce hour matrix (Attachment ( X) will be assessed to determine if the Offeror has proposed adequate/sufficient staffing to meet or exceed the requirements of the PWS.

Note to Specialist –If Management Approach is to be evaluated, consider using the sample language below ensuring it matches the areas specified in Section L:

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed management approach based on the information required by Section L of this solicitation. The management approach will be evaluated to assess the Offeror’s ability to plan, manage, staff, and execute the contract and the extent to which any proposed processes and procedures ensure successful accomplishment of the tasks described in the SOW.

(Note To Specialist - the small business utilization strategy can be a separate evaluation factor, a subfactor under the technical factor, or considered within the evaluation of one of the technical subfactors – see below for basic language which can be tailored to the specific procurement utilizing the small business office for assistance.)

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, and SBIR and STTR Program, 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.

If using any of the DFARS PGI 215.304(c)(i)(A) specific evaluation factors/subfactors , insert following sample criteria and ensure Section L instructions match.

(1) The extent to which such firms are specifically identified in proposals;

(2) The extent of commitment to use such firms (for example, enforceable commitments are to be weighted more heavily than non-enforceable ones); (NOTE: if using this criterion, recommend specifying or providing an example of what constitutes an “enforceable commitment”; i.e. signed subcontract, signed agreement to subcontract in the event the prime is awarded the contract, or other binding agreements indicating commitment to subcontract)

(3) The complexity and variety of the work small firms are to perform (i.e. the Government may find favor in higher complexities of subcontract offerings with small business concerns);

(4) The extent of participation of such firms in terms of the value of the total acquisition.

Note to Specialist: If it is anticipated, based on history or market research, that prime contractors will propose with large numbers of subcontractors as part of their team, consider using the following:

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 XX principle subcontractor/JV team members.

II. PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY CRITERIA

The DoD Source Selection Procedures provide four Past Performance Relevancy Ratings and accompanying definitions; Very Relevant, Relevant, Somewhat Relevant, and Not Relevant. The evaluation of competing Offerors’ Past Performance involves three distinct aspects: Recency of the experience, the Relevancy of the experience to the instant solicitation requirements, and the evaluated quality of the recent and relevant past experience. The DoD Source Selection Procedures requires that recency and relevancy criteria, unique to each source selection, shall be stated in the solicitation. The recency criteria should define how far back in time performance on a Relevant contract may be to be considered in the Offeror’s Past Performance evaluation. The relevancy criteria should cover only the most important areas of the solicitation requirement in terms of service / support (scope), complexity and dollar value or Labor/material amounts (magnitude). Although scope, complexity, and magnitude are generally different aspects of relevancy, that does not preclude considering the same contract attribute covering more than one aspect.

This guide provides solicitation drafters with examples of relevancy criteria that would be inserted in the Past Performance section of Section M. The approach for identifying unique specific areas of relevancy in Section M must correlate to the number of relevancy ratings used (Very Relevant, Relevant, Somewhat Relevant, Not Relevant). The RFP should be clear how the identified areas/attributes will be considered in the context of the chosen number of rating definitions being used. For example, if the drafter is only using Relevant and Not Relevant ratings, the unique specific relevancy criteria should be specified as minimums, and be set at reasonable enough thresholds as to ensure that the Past Performance Relevancy criteria do not unnecessarily eliminate contracts from consideration, thus effectively diminishing competition. Critical thinking and coordination within the IPT is paramount in establishing the Relevancy criteria.

Insert in Section M relevancy section:

Scope:

<Insert other technical focus areas as desired>

Complexity:

<Insert other technical/management focus areas as desired>

Magnitude:

Dollar value

Labor Hours/Material Minimum contract total value X and/or minimum annual contract value X Minimum labor hours of X, and/or Material of X Minimum Labor hours of X and/or minimum Material value of X

<NOTE: Consider including an objective definition/clarification of the elements under scope, complexity and magnitude that would constitutes the determination that a contract is “Relevant”; “Somewhat Relevant”, and/or “Very Relevant” as applicable>