Section_M_Am_1.docx

Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award M.1 Listing of Clauses Incorporated by Reference NOTICE: The following contract clauses pertinent to this section are hereby incorporated by reference:

I. Federal Acquisition Regulation (48 CFR Chapter 1)

II. NASA FAR Supplement (48 CFR Chapter 18)

None incorporated by reference.

(End of Clause) M.2 Evaluation Factors for Award Each area of work (Baseline A, Baseline B, and IDIQ) will be evaluated independently for all factors. This procurement will be conducted utilizing a combination of technical/management, past performance, and cost/price evaluation factors. The lowest price proposals may not necessarily receive an award; likewise, the highest-rated technical/management and past performance proposals may not necessarily receive an award.

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.

Only one proposal per Offeror will be evaluated. If more than one proposal is received from a single Offeror, the Government will evaluate the last proposal received before the submission deadline. All other versions will be regarded as unacceptable. It should be noted that this solicitation does not include Alternate II for FAR Clause 52.215-1; therefore, alternate proposals will not be accepted.

The remaining proposals will be evaluated against the technical/management, past performance, and cost/price evaluation factors. Each area of work will be independently evaluated and awarded.

Tradeoffs will be made amongst technical/management, past performance, and cost/price factors. The relative importance of the tradeoff evaluation factors for each area of work is as follows:

· BASELINE A (NAMIS Services): Past Performance is significantly more important than Cost/Price. Technical/Management is more important than Cost/Price. Technical/Management and Cost/Price, when combined, are less important than Past Performance.

· BASELINE B (FOD IT and PIC Services): Past Performance is more important than Cost/Price. Technical/Management is more important than Cost/Price. Technical/Management and Cost/Price, when combined, are more important than Past Performance.

· IDIQ: Past Performance is more important than Cost/Price. Technical/Management is more important than Cost/Price. Technical/Management and Cost/Price, when combined, are more important than Past Performance.

The Government will carry out the evaluation activities and report to the Source Selection Authority (SSA), who is responsible for making the source selection decision for each area of work.

At the completion of the evaluation, the Government may elect to award a contract(s) without discussions to the Offeror(s) whose proposal(s) represent(s) the best value to the Government. The Government may elect to establish a competitive range and conduct discussions. Discussions, if held, will only be held with the most highly-rated Offerors. If a competitive range is established and discussions conducted, debriefings will only be held at the announcement of competitive range, if requested, for Offerors not in the competitive range for any area of work. For Offerors still actively competing in any area of work, debriefings will be conducted after contract award. Each company will be given one debriefing, despite the number of areas of work proposed to.

For each area of work, the Government will award to the Offeror(s) 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. Further, the Subcontracting Arrangement Information (SAI) and the OCI information will also be used to determine eligibility for award. The Government reserves the right to award a contract to a single Offeror that includes one, some, or all of the proposed areas of work based on the Government’s evaluation of the Offeror’s proposal.

The Government intends to award Baselines A and B each to a single Offeror.

The Government intends to make multiple awards under this solicitation for IDIQ. For IDIQ, the Government intends to reserve one or more contract awards for small business concerns. The Government intends to award to enough small business companies to solicit competition restricted to small businesses.

The Government will evaluate proposals using the factors and subfactors below. Although proposals are organized by factors and subfactors, the Government will conduct an integrated evaluation to consider consistency within proposal information. The Offerors are cautioned that a lack of consistency could lead to a lower rating in one or more of the factors or subfactors.

M.2.1 Technical/Management Factor – Volume I Offerors may propose to any area of work by proposing to the applicable Statement of Work (SOW) section (for Baseline A and Baseline B) or sample Task Order (TO) (for IDIQ). Each area of work will be evaluated individually for confidence.

Ratings of “High Confidence,” “Moderate Confidence,” and “Low Confidence” are defined below:

High Confidence (Green) For the evaluated factor, the proposal demonstrates exceptional merit by strongly addressing the solicitation’s evaluation criteria in a manner that provides evaluators a high level of confidence the Offeror will satisfy technical/management requirements identified in the solicitation. Unfavorable observations about the proposal, if any, are very minor and do not appreciably reduce the evaluators’ high confidence the Offeror will satisfy the technical/management requirements identified in the solicitation.

Moderate Confidence (Blue) For the evaluated factor, the proposal demonstrates appreciable merit by fully addressing the solicitation’s evaluation criteria in a manner that provides reasonable confidence the Offeror will satisfy technical/management requirements identified in the solicitation. Unfavorable observations about the proposal may detract somewhat from the evaluators’ confidence, but evaluators still have confidence the Offeror will satisfy the technical/management requirements identified in the solicitation.

Low Confidence (Yellow) For the evaluated factor, the proposal fails to demonstrate appreciable merit in addressing the solicitation’s evaluation criteria to provide reasonable confidence the Offeror will satisfy technical/management requirements identified in the solicitation. Unfavorable observations about the proposal detract substantially from the evaluators’ confidence that the Offeror will satisfy the technical/management requirements identified in the solicitation.

Subfactor A: Contract Management Approach Management and Staffing Plan: The proposed Management and Staffing Plan will be evaluated for overall demonstrated comprehensive understanding, effectiveness, feasibility, efficiency, and consistency with the overall management approach and rationale.

Total Compensation Plan: The Offeror’s Total Compensation Plan will be evaluated for reasonableness, feasibility, and completeness.

Phase-In Plan: For Baseline A and Baseline B, the proposed Contract Phase-In Plan will be evaluated for reasonableness, feasibility, and completeness.

Small Business Subcontracting Plan: The proposed Small Business Subcontracting Plan will be evaluated for overall demonstrated understanding, completeness, feasibility, and effectiveness, of the Offeror’s independent assessment to achieve the proposed overall subcontracting goals, in comparison to the Contracting Officer’s assessment of the appropriate subcontracting goals for this procurement. The plan will also be evaluated in terms of meeting the requirements of FAR 19.704, Subcontracting Plan Requirements. The evaluation of the Small Business Subcontracting Plan will be on the basis of total contract value. Additionally, the Offeror’s rationale for proposing higher and/or lower goals than those determined appropriate by the Contracting Officer will also be evaluated. The information provided in the Small Business Subcontracting Tables, Attachment L-08, will be evaluated in addition to the supplied narrative.

Subfactor B: Specific Technical Understanding and Resources For each area of work proposed, Specific Technical Understanding and Resources will be evaluated for demonstration of understanding, reasonableness, feasibility, completeness, and consistency with other portions of the Offeror’s proposal.

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 Offeror’s past performance will be independently evaluated for each area of work proposed by the Government. The Government will evaluate the past performance of the offeror and major subcontractors, as defined in L.16.5(a). In accordance with the instructions in Section L.16.5, the past performance of the proposed Program Manager will also be evaluated.

The Government will use past performance information from proposal data required by provisions of Section L, information obtained by the Government 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 offerors past performance confidence rating. These aspects are recency, relevance, and performance. A description of each aspect is provided below.

Recency: Only contract period of performances within 3 years from the date of the JOIST 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, work, requirements, or supplies, in comparison to the requirements of this solicitation. This shall include the offeror’s depth or breadth of experience performing the type of work covered by the Statement of Work, the offeror’s ability to perform the requirements (or manage a team performing the requirements) and produce quality services. Contracts that exhibit all specific trades/type of work required under the solicitation statement of work section applicable to the proposed area of work will be considered more relevant than contracts limited to specific trades only. The term complexity considers items such as contract type, experience with special terms and conditions, and/or context of performance in comparison to the performance environment outlined in this solicitation.

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

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

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

· Somewhat Relevant: Present/past performance contractual effort involved some of the content, complexity, and size of effort and complexities than this solicitation requires.

· Not Relevant: Present/past performance effort did not involve any of the content, complexity, and size of effort and complexities 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 JOIST 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 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, small business subcontracting, 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 in-depth 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 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.

The past performance of a major subcontractor will be compared to the work proposed to be performed by that subcontractor, and weighted accordingly in assigning the overall past performance adjectival rating to the offeror. The proposed past performance effort of the program manager will receive less consideration in the performance confidence assessment than the proposed past performance effort of the same recency, relevance, and performance quality of that offered by a prime or subcontractor.

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.” Offeror 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 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 Cost realism and price analysis 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 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/price 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 and predicted growth in proposed cost/price during the performance of the work.

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.

Baseline Evaluation The Government will perform a cost realism analysis of all the proposed prices (cost and fee), which includes the price of the base and option periods (all 5 years) for each baseline. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed and probable cost (labor and non-labor resources) and fee for the entire period of performance (Contract Years 1-5).

IDIQ Task Order Evaluation The Government will perform 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 the Task Order (TO) and the TO’s projected costs over all contract years.

The probable cost for the sum of all contract years will be used for purposes of evaluation and selection.

IDIQ Specified Resources Evaluation The Government will perform price analysis of all proposed IDIQ FBRs for each Standard Labor Category (SLC).

For purposes of evaluation and source selection, the proposed price calculated from:

The application of the offeror’s FBRs to the Government-provided labor resources (hours and SLCs);

The application of the offeror’s profit rate to both the aforementioned labor will be considered, in total for all contract years.

The proposed overall price for the sum of all contract years and the results of the Government’s analysis will be presented to the Source Selection Authority (SSA) for selection purposes.

FFP Phase-in – The Government will perform price analysis of the proposed phase-in price.

Proposed and Probable Costs for Selection Purposes – The results of the Government’s cost and price evaluations for each area of work will be presented to the Source Selection Authority (SSA) for consideration in making the source selection decision for that respective area of work.

For Baseline A, the proposed and probable costs of the completion form Baseline A effort and the proposed price of the Baseline A phase-in effort will be summed and presented to the SSA.

For Baseline B, the proposed and probable costs of the completion form Baseline B effort and the proposed price of the Baseline B phase-in effort will be summed and presented to the SSA.

For IDIQ, the proposed and probable costs for the IDIQ task order effort, the proposed price for the IDIQ specified resources, and the proposed price of the IDIQ phase-in effort will be summed and presented to the SSA.

M.2.4 Responsibility Considerations – Volume IV An Offeror must be considered to be responsible for award in accordance with FAR 9.104. The items listed below are important Responsibility Considerations; however, these items may not constitute all Responsibility Considerations that will be addressed by the Contracting Officer 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 Offerors only.

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.

Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) Information The Government will perform an analysis to ensure an Organizational Conflict of Interest issue that cannot be mitigated does not exist. The OCI information will be assessed to verify the Offeror is considered to be responsible for award. If it appears an OCI issue does exist that the Offeror’s plan failed to mitigate, the Government must notify the Offeror, provide the reasons therefore, and allow the Offeror a reasonable opportunity to respond. The Contracting Officer will make the final determination if the OCI issue exists and can be mitigated.

Property Management Plan The Contracting Officer will request a Government Property Management Plan (DRD-07) from all Offerors in the competitive range, or only from the apparent successful Offerors, or from Offerors deemed as necessary to support an efficient responsibility decision. Offerors will be notified by the Contracting Officer of this requirement, with an anticipated 10 calendar days allowed for submittal.

Business System Adequacy In accordance with FAR 16.301-3, Cost-Reimbursement Contracts – Limitations, the Offeror’s accounting system status will be reviewed to determine if the Offeror has an adequate accounting system. A contract may only be awarded to an Offeror with an accounting system determined to be adequate by the Government.

Responsibility Information As appropriate, any additional information submitted to demonstrate status as a responsible Offeror will be used in determining responsibility in accordance with FAR 9.104.

Waiver of Rights to Inventions Information submitted will be reviewed to determine compliance with NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) Clause 1852.227-70, New Technology, and NFS provision 1852.227-71, Request for Waiver to Rights to Inventions.

Cost Accounting Standards If an Offeror is required to submit a Disclosure Statement by the provisions at K.3, 52.230-1 Cost Accounting Standards Notices and Certification, the adequacy of that disclosure statement will be determined in accordance with FAR 30.202-6.

IT Security Management Program The Offeror’s IT Security Management Program Plan will be reviewed for demonstrated ability to comply with IT security requirements and regulations. If it appears that the proposed plan does not comply with IT security requirements and regulations, the Government must notify the Offeror, provide the reasons therefore, and allow the Offeror a reasonable opportunity to respond.

Key Personnel Commitment The Offeror’s evidence of commitment for Key Personnel will be evaluated for overall demonstrated effectiveness and feasibility.

CMMI Certification [Applicable only to Baseline A] The Offeror will be evaluated for the possession of a CMMI-Level 3 or higher certification ; certification must have been provided by an independent certifying authority. CMMI-Level 3 is required at time of proposal submission for any proposal for Baseline A.

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 a completion of all fill-ins, 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.

The Government reserves the right to unilaterally modify the contract to remove any unsuccessful proposed areas of work in Section C and any clauses or attachments not applicable to the areas awarded.

(End of Provision) [End of Section]

NNJ17580323R M-9