Section_M.pdf

RFP NNJ16589301R Section M

M-1

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1 FAR 52.252-1, Solicitation Provisions Incorporated by Reference (Feb 1998)

This solicitation incorporates one or more solicitation provisions by reference, with the same force and effect as if they were given in full text. Upon request, the Contracting Officer will make their full text available. The Offeror is cautioned that the listed provisions may include blocks that must be completed by the Offeror and submitted with its quotation or offer. In lieu of submitting the full text of those provisions, the Offeror may identify the provision by paragraph identifier and provide the appropriate information with its quotation or offer. Also, the full text of a solicitation provision may be accessed electronically at these addresses:

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) clauses:

http://www.acquisition.gov/far/

NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) clauses:

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/procurement/regs/nfstoc.htm

(End of Provision)

NOTICE: The following contract provisions pertinent to this section are hereby incorporated by reference:

I. FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION (48 CFR CHAPTER 1)

PROVISION NUMBER DATE TITLE

None.

II. NASA FAR SUPPLEMENT (48 CFR CHAPTER 18) PROVISIONS

Provision Number Date Title None.

(End of Provision)

M.2 Performance Price Tradeoff (PPT) Evaluation Factors for Award (52.125-122) (FEB 2014) (JSC Procurement Instruction)

An initial review of proposals will be conducted to determine acceptability of the proposals in accordance with NFS 1815.305-70, Identification of Unacceptable Proposals. All unacceptable proposals will be eliminated from further evaluation.

http://www.acquisition.gov/far/ http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/procurement/regs/nfstoc.htm

M-2

The remaining proposals will first be evaluated against the Technical Acceptability Factor.

All “Acceptable” and “Potentially Acceptable” proposals will be evaluated against Past Performance and Cost/Price Factors. At the completion of the evaluation against the Past Performance and Cost/Price Factors, the Government may elect to award a contract without discussions to the technically “Acceptable” Offeror(s) who represents the best value as described below.

The Government may elect to establish a competitive range and conduct discussions.

Although an Offeror may receive a rating of “Potentially Acceptable”, it does not guarantee that discussions will be held, or that the Offeror will be automatically included in the competitive range, if discussions are held. Discussions, if held, will only be held with the most highly rated Offerors.

After discussions close and Final Proposal Revisions are received, all proposals remaining in the competitive range will receive a final rating against the Technical Acceptability Factor as either “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” only.

Ratings of “Acceptable”, “Unacceptable”, and “Potentially Acceptable” are defined below:

“Acceptable” Rating – A proposal will be rated “Acceptable” under the Technical Acceptability Factor, where ALL sub-factors are individually rated acceptable based on the level of completeness, feasibility, and reasonableness such that associated risks do not jeopardize an acceptable level of contract performance.

“Unacceptable” Rating – A proposal will be rated “Unacceptable” under the Technical Acceptability Factor, where ANY sub- factor is individually rated unacceptable based on the level of completeness, feasibility, and reasonableness such that associated risks do jeopardize an acceptable level of contract performance, and these risks cannot reasonably be expected to be cured through discussions.

“Potentially Acceptable” Rating – A proposal will be rated “Potentially Acceptable” under the Technical Acceptability Factor, when after the initial evaluation, the proposal does not fully meet the definition for an “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” rating and the Government anticipates that additional information obtained during discussions could result in a proposal rating of “Acceptable”.

Following discussions (if held), an Offeror’s Final Proposal Revision will only be further evaluated against the Past Performance and Cost/Price Factors in the final evaluation if the proposal is first determined to be “Acceptable” under the Technical Acceptability Factor.

The SLPT will carry out the evaluation activities and report to the Source Selection Authority (SSA), who is responsible for making the source selection decision. For those Offerors who are determined to be “Acceptable” under the Technical Acceptability Factor, tradeoffs will be made between Past Performance and Cost/Price. Past Performance is more important than Cost/Price.

M-3

The Government will award to the Offeror whose proposal offers the best overall value to the Government that meets all solicitation requirements and is determined responsible in accordance with FAR 9.104, Standards.

M.2.1 Technical Acceptability Factor (Volume I)

Table M-1: Cross Reference from Section L to Section M

Title Section

ID

Title Section

ID

Volume I - Technical Acceptability

L.17.4 Volume I - Technical Acceptability

M.2.1

Technical and Management Approach

L.17.4A Technical and Management Approach

M.2.1A

Sample Task Order, IDIQ L.17.4B Sample Task Order, IDIQ M.2.1B

Labor Relations Plan and Total Compensation Plan

L.17.4C Labor Relations Plan and Total Compensation Plan

M.2.1C

Phase In Plan L.17.4D Phase In Plan M.2.1D

Safety & Health Plan

L.17.4E Safety & Health Plan M.2.1E

Volume II - Past Performance

L.17.5 Volume II - Past Performance

M.2.2

Volume III - Price Proposal L.17.6 Volume III – Cost and Price Factors

M.2.3

Volume IV - Responsibility Considerations

L.17.7 Volume IV - Responsibility Considerations

M.2.4

Volume V - Model Contract and Additional Requirements

L.17.8 Volume V - Model Contract and Additional Requirements

M.2.5

A. Technical and Management Approach

The proposed Technical and Management Approach should demonstrate a technically acceptable understanding of requirements and will be evaluated for reasonableness, feasibility, and completeness where associated risks do not jeopardize an acceptable level of contract performance.

B. Sample Task Order, IDIQ

The proposed Sample Task Order should demonstrate a technically acceptable understanding of requirements and will be evaluated for reasonableness, feasibility, and completeness where associated risks do not jeopardize an acceptable level of contract performance.

M-4

C. Labor Relations Plan and Total Compensation Plan

The proposed Labor Relations Plan and Total Compensation Plan will be evaluated for demonstration of understanding, reasonableness, feasibility, completeness, and consistency with other portions of the Offeror’s proposal. The information in Compensation Templates (a) through (d) will be evaluated as part of the Total Compensation Plan. The Specific Technical Understanding and Resources will be at a level of reasonableness, feasibility, and completeness where associated risks do not jeopardize an acceptable level of contract performance.

D. Phase-in Plan

The proposed Phase-in Plan, DRD AR-1-2, should demonstrate a technically acceptable understanding of requirements and will be evaluated for reasonableness, feasibility, and completeness where associated risks do not jeopardize an acceptable level of contract

E. Safety and Health Plan

The proposed Safety and Health Plan should demonstrate a technically acceptable understanding of requirements and will be evaluated for reasonableness, feasibility, and completeness where associated risks do not jeopardize an acceptable level of contract

M.2.2 Past Performance Factor (Volume II)

Past Performance indicates how well an Offeror performed on earlier work and can be a significant indicator of how well it can be expected to perform the work at hand. The SLPT will evaluate the past performance of the Offeror and major subcontractors, as defined in L.17.5.

The Government will use past performance information from proposal data required by provisions of Section L, information obtained by the SLPT based on communications with listed references, as well as data independently obtained from other government and commercial sources, such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) and similar systems of other governmental departments and agencies, Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) channels, interviews with client program managers and contracting officers, and other sources known to the Government, including commercial sources. Offerors are to note that, in conducting this assessment, the Government reserves the right to use both data provided by the Offeror and data obtained from other sources. In accordance with FAR 15.305, an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, a rating of neutral will be assigned.

Three aspects are taken into consideration by the evaluation team when determining the Offeror’s past performance confidence rating. These aspects are recency, relevance, and performance. A description of each aspect is provided below:

M-5

Recency: Only contract period of performances within 3 years from the date of the Logistics Contract original solicitation will be considered in the past performance evaluation. Within this 3 year period, more recent performance will receive greater consideration in the performance confidence assessment than those with more distant performance, assuming all other considerations to be equal. The Government will not consider performance on any contract that has no documented performance history.

Relevance: If the contract is deemed recent, the Government will then determine the degree of relevance - i.e., level of pertinence - of the contract based on size, content, and complexity. The term “content” considers the contract’s scope of services in comparison to the requirements of this solicitation. Contracts that exhibit all specific trades/type of work required under the solicitation statement of work will be considered more relevant than contracts limited to specific trades only.

For purposes of this procurement, relevance will be assessed using the following definitions:

Very

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same content, complexity, and size of effort this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved much of the content, complexity, and size of effort this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant

Present/past performance contractual effort involved some of the content, complexity, and size of effort this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the content, complexity, and size of effort this solicitation requires.

This evaluation will consider what the corporate parent, affiliate, or other organizational entities (division(s), business units, segments) are responsible for and/or proposing to do on the Logistics Contract effort and the specific resources (workforce, management, facilities, or other resources) to be employed and relied upon, such that the corporate parent, affiliate, or other organizational entity that your company will have meaningful involvement in contract performance, in determining relevance. Offerors with past performance as part of a joint venture will be evaluated on the entirety of the work performed by the joint venture.

Performance: The Government will assess the performance quality, schedule adherence, cost control, and safety performance of the contracts which are considered to be recent and relevant (how well the contractor performed on the contracts). The quality assessment consists of an evaluation of all past performance information available, regardless of its source. The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. The Government will consider the number and severity of problems, the

M-6 effectiveness of corrective actions taken that have resulted in sustained improvements, and the overall record of past performance. This assessment will lead the Government to determine the quality of performance as either Excellent, Very Good, Satisfactory, Marginal, or Poor/Unsatisfactory. For existing and newly-formed joint ventures, the past performance of each joint venture partner will be evaluated separately. Also, for existing joint ventures, the past performance of the joint venture will be evaluated.

The past performance of a major subcontractor or each joint venture partner will be compared to the work proposed to be performed by that subcontractor/joint venture partner, and weighted accordingly in assigning the overall past performance adjectival rating to the Offeror. The past performance of an existing joint venture will be weighted more heavily than work performed by its joint venture partners separately.

Past Performance Confidence Rating. More recent and more relevant past performance will receive greater consideration in the performance confidence assessment than less recent or less relevant past performance. A performance confidence rating will be assessed at the overall factor level for Past Performance after evaluating aspects of the Offeror’s recent and relevant past performance.

Each of the adjective ratings below has a "performance" component and a "relevance" component as discussed above. As used in the ratings below, the term “pertinent” is equivalent to the term “relevant.” Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings will be assigned as follows:

Very High Level of Confidence: The Offeror’s relevant past performance is of exceptional merit and is very highly pertinent to this acquisition, indicates exemplary performance in a timely, efficient, and economical manner and very minor (if any) problems with no adverse effect on overall performance. Based on the Offeror’s performance record, there is a very high level of confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

High Level of Confidence: The Offeror’s relevant past performance is highly pertinent to this acquisition; demonstrating very effective performance that would be fully responsive to contract requirements. Offeror’s past performance indicates that contract requirements were accomplished in a timely, efficient, and economical manner for the most part, with only minor problems that had little identifiable effect on overall performance. Based on the Offeror’s performance record, there is a high level of confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Moderate Level of Confidence: The Offeror’s relevant past performance is pertinent to this acquisition, and it demonstrates effective performance. Performance was fully responsive to contract requirements; there may have been reportable problems, but with little identifiable effect on overall performance. Based on the Offeror’s performance record, there is a moderate level of confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Low Level of Confidence: The Offeror’s relevant past performance is at least somewhat pertinent to this acquisition, and it meets or slightly exceeds minimum

M-7 acceptable standards. Offeror achieved adequate results; there may have been reportable problems with identifiable, but not substantial, effects on overall performance. Based on the Offeror’s performance record, there is a low level of confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Changes to the Offeror’s existing processes may be necessary in order to achieve contract requirements.

Very Low Level of Confidence: The Offeror’s relevant past performance does not meet minimum acceptable standards in one or more areas; remedial action was required in one or more areas. Performance problems occurred in one or more areas, which adversely affected overall performance. Based on the Offeror’s performance record, there is a very 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 may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance [see FAR 15.305(a) (2) (ii) and (iv)].

M.2.3 Cost and Price Factor (Volume III)

The Government will evaluate proposed costs and establish the probable cost of doing business with each Offeror. The Offeror's Cost/Price will be evaluated for the validity, realism and adequacy of each cost proposal and the probable cost that will be incurred in the performance of this effort. The evaluation of cost will include an assessment of the cost of doing business with each Offeror, predicted growth in proposed cost during the performance of the work, and the features of each Offeror's situation that would cause its proposed effort to cost more or less than that which was proposed by the Offeror.

To ensure that the final agreed-to prices are fair and reasonable, the Government will perform these analyses in accordance with FAR 15.305-Proposal Evaluation, FAR 15.404- Proposal Analysis, and NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) 1815.305 - Proposal Evaluation.

Evaluation of Core CPFF

The Government will perform price analysis and cost realism analysis of the proposed Core cost/price to include cost elements such as direct labor FTEs and/or direct labor hours, direct labor rates, indirect rates, subcontract costs, Non-Labor Resources (NLRs), and fee, including fee rates.

Cost realism will be performed to determine the probable cost of performance for each Offeror. The Government’s probable cost may differ from the proposed cost because it will reflect the Government’s best estimate of the cost of the contract that is most likely to result from the Offeror’s proposal. The probable cost may include adjustments to an 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 cost realism

M-8 analysis and/or mathematical corrections to the application of formulas and/or rates to either hours or NLRs.

The probable cost for the sum of all contract years including award term years (contract years 1 – 8) will be used for purposes of evaluation and selection.

Cost and Fee IDIQ

The Government will perform price analysis and cost realism analysis of all proposed IDIQ prices to include cost elements such as direct labor rates, indirect rates, Non- Labor Resources (NLRs), and fee, including fee rates. Price and cost analysis will also include the total proposed cost and fee for the Task Orders (TOs) and the TOs’ projected costs over all contract years.

Cost realism will be performed to determine the probable cost of performance for each Offeror. The Government’s probable cost may differ from the proposed cost because it will reflect the Government’s best estimate of the cost of the contract that is most likely to result from the Offeror’s proposal. The probable cost may include adjustments to an 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 cost realism analysis and/or mathematical corrections to the application of formulas and/or rates to either hours or NLRs.

The probable cost for the sum of all contract years including award term years (contract years 1 – 8) will be used for purposes of evaluation and selection.

Phase-In

The Government will perform price analysis of the proposed phase-in effort.

Proposed And Probable Costs For Selection Purposes

The results of the Government’s cost evaluation will be presented to the Source Selection Authority (SSA) for consideration in making the source selection. The proposed and probable costs of the CPFF Core and the IDIQ with the proposed FFP Phase-in, inclusive of the basic and award term periods (all 8 years) of performance will be summed and presented to the SSA for purposes of selection.

M-9

M.2.4 Responsibility Considerations (Volume IV)

An Offeror must be considered to be responsible for award in accordance with FAR 9.104.

Subcontractor Arrangement Information, and the Business System Adequacy are used to determine responsibility. The items listed below are important Responsibility Considerations; however, these items may not constitute all Responsibility Considerations that will be addressed by the SLPT pursuant to FAR 9.104.

The Contracting Officer may choose to evaluate this information for the Offerors in the Competitive Range or the apparent Successful Offeror only.

A. Subcontracting Arrangement Information

The Subcontracting Arrangement Information will be assessed to determine if a formal size determination needs to be made by the Small Business Administration (SBA) and to confirm that the prime contractor making the offer will be performing the primary and vital requirements for the contract. The proposal evaluation may proceed until a final determination is made by the SBA. Offerors are advised that the formal size determination made by SBA may result in the Offeror not being eligible for award.

For any 8(a) joint venture, SBA must approve the joint venture agreement prior to the award of a contract on behalf of the joint venture. All Joint Ventures (regardless of size status) should have a new DUNS number and Cage Code number for the Joint Venture and must be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM). Joint Ventures cannot use the DUNS number or Cage Code for any of the entities in the Joint Venture.

B. Accounting System Adequacy

FAR 16.301-3, Cost-Reimbursable Contracts, Limitations, requires that a contractor's accounting system be adequate for determining costs applicable to the contract prior to the award of a cost-reimbursement contract. Therefore, each Offeror shall indicate whether they have, or do not have, an accounting system that has been determined to be adequate by the Government and shall provide evidence as to the adequacy of their accounting system as determined by the Cognizant Federal Agency, such as DCMA or NASA. An adequate accounting system is not an evaluation criterion. It is a basic contract requirement with a pass/fail determination. A contract may only be awarded to the Offeror(s) who are determined to have an adequate accounting system.

A newly formed Joint Venture (JV) may propose an accounting system that is the same as a legacy system currently in use by one of the parties to the JV. This is a reasonable way to establish prior to award that the accounting system being proposed is adequate to receive a contract award as long as the system being proposed is, in all material respects, the same system that was previously determined to be adequate for determining costs applicable to a specific contract as required by FAR 16.301-3(a)(3). Any JV proposal that

M-10 places reliance on the adequacy of a legacy accounting system to establish the adequacy of the accounting system being proposed should clearly state that the system being proposed is the same as the system that has already been determined to be adequate.

This documentation should identify who (e.g. the agency, independent auditor, contracting officer, other party) determined the accounting system being proposed to be adequate and when that determination was made. In summary, an existing and adequate accounting system can demonstrate a proposed system is adequate for award so long as both accounting systems are the same.

However, if a newly created accounting system is proposed or if the system being proposed has not already been determined adequate, consistent with FAR 16.301- 3(a)(3), the Contracting Officer may obtain additional information to determine its adequacy for contract award.

Following contract award, a more comprehensive post-award accounting system review may be conducted.

(End of Provision)

M.2.5 Model Contract (Volume V)

The model contract will not be evaluated for selection purposes. It will, however, be reviewed to ensure that it was signed by a person authorized to commit the Offeror, that there is completion of all fill-ins, all pages of the contract are submitted, and that it accurately captures the content as set forth in the Offeror’s proposal. Errors or inconsistencies in the model contract may result in an Offeror being removed from consideration for award.

Section M - LIST OF TABLES

Table Title

M-1 Cross Reference from Section L to Section M

[END OF SECTION]