Section_M.pdf

NNJ17584385R SECTION M

RESEARCH, ENGINEERING, MISSION INTEGRATION SERVICES CONTRACT

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 (CO) 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 this/these address(es):

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

52.217-5 JUL 1990 Evaluation of Options

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

PROVISION NUMBER DATE TITLE

None Incorporated by

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

M-2

M.2 EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

This procurement shall be conducted utilizing a combination of technical confidence, past performance, and cost/price evaluation factors. The lowest price proposals may not necessarily receive an award; likewise, the highest technically rated proposals may not necessarily receive an award.

At the completion of the evaluation, the Government may elect to award a contract(s) without discussions to the Offeror(s) whose proposal represents 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.

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.

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.

The remaining proposals will be evaluated against the technical confidence, past performance, and cost/price evaluation factors. Each CLIN will be evaluated individually for selection purposes.

Tradeoffs will be made between Technical/Management, Past Performance, and Cost/Price

Factors. Past Performance and Cost/Price are approximately equal. Past Performance is significantly more important than Technical/Management. Cost/Price is significantly more important than Technical/Management.

The Government will award to the Offerors 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.3 VOLUME I – TECHNICAL/MANAGEMENT CONFIDENCE FACTOR

Offerors may propose to any CLINs for which they are qualified by proposing to the applicable sample Task Orders (TOs), as shown in Table L-5 Representative IDIQ TOs. There is no requirement to propose on all CLINs, nor are Offerors limited to proposing on a single CLIN.

Each CLIN will be evaluated individually for Confidence. The descending order of importance for the Technical/Management Confidence Factor is:

M-3

Commercialization Approach

Specific Technical Understanding and Resources

Organization Conflict of Interest Avoidance Plan (OCI)

Total Compensation Plan (TCP)

Small Business Utilization

An Offeror’s proposal can be “High Confidence” on some of the CLINs, “Medium Confidence” on some of the CLINs, and “Low Confidence” on other CLINs.

Ratings of “High Confidence”, “Medium 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 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 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 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 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 requirements identified in the solicitation. Unfavorable observations about the proposal detract substantially from the evaluators’ confidence that the Offeror will satisfy the technical requirements identified in the solicitation.

(a) TA1: Specific Technical Understanding and Resources

The proposed Specific Technical Understanding and realism of proposed resources to meet the requirements outlined in the Representative TOs will be evaluated for demonstration of understanding, reasonableness, feasibility, completeness, and consistency. The Specific Technical Understanding and Resources will be at a level

M-4 of overall demonstrated understanding, completeness, feasibility, and effectiveness where associated risks do not jeopardize an acceptable level of contract performance.

(b) TA2: Commercialization Approach

The Offeror’s commercial approach, process and management philosophy per Data

Requirements Document (DRD) REMIS-PM-01will be evaluated for overall demonstrated understanding, completeness, feasibility, and effectiveness where associated risks do not jeopardize an acceptable level of contract performance.

(c) TA3: Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) Avoidance Plan

The proposed OCI Plan will be assessed to determine if an organizational conflict exists and if the contractor’s approach to avoiding, neutralizing, or mitigating organizational conflicts of interest are reasonable, feasible, and complete. An acceptable OCI Plan per DRD REMIS-PM-02 will be at a level of overall demonstrated understanding, completeness, feasibility, and effectiveness where associated risks do not jeopardize an acceptable level of contract performance. If there is a unique OCI for any specific task order, please include your company’s response in your OCI plan.

(d) TA4: Small Business Utilization Plan

The Offeror’s Small Business Subcontracting Plan, process and management philosophy per DRD REMIS-PC-02 will be evaluated for overall demonstrated understanding, completeness, feasibility, and effectiveness where associated risks do not jeopardize an acceptable level of contract performance.

(e) TA5: Total Compensation Plan

The Offeror’s Total Compensation Plan will be evaluated for reasonableness, feasibility, and completeness where associated risks do not jeopardize an acceptable level of contract performance.

M.4 VOLUME II – COST/PRICE FACTOR

Each CLIN will be evaluated individually for Cost/Price.

To ensure that the proposed cost/price is fair and reasonable, the Government will perform cost/price analysis of all proposals received in response to this solicitation. Each TO will be

M-5 evaluated separately. Offerors shall not propose price reductions assuming they will be selected for multiple CLINs. Offeror’s proposed price reductions based on selection in multiple CLINs will not be considered for evaluation or award. In addition, the Government will review all proposed Fully

Burdened Rates (FBRs) and prices/cost for all contract years per CLIN to determine if they are realistic. Unrealistically low prices may demonstrate a lack of understanding of the Government’s requirements, thus representing a high-risk approach to contract performance. The Government will consider the results of such an analysis in evaluating an Offeror’s proposal.

Cost-Reimbursable IDIQ

The Government will perform a cost realism analysis of the proposed Indefinite Delivery and

Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) direct labor rates and resources,(labor and non-labor) and develop a probable cost estimate for the TO proposals submitted by each Offeror. This evaluation of the cost factors will result in a probable cost which may differ from the proposed cost and reflects the

Government’s best estimate of the cost of any contract that is most likely to result from the

Offeror’s proposal. The proposed FBRs for the entire potential period of performance (5 base years and 2 option years) will be evaluated. The Government will also evaluate the reasonableness of the non-labor resources. The FBRs and all other rates used in developing the cost proposal shall match the FBRs and all other rates in Attachment J-9, Fully Burdened Rates, of the model contract.

However, if they do not match, the government will use the FBRs and all other rates in Attachment

J-9 as a basis for the proposed cost

For purposes of proposal evaluation and source selection, the proposed cost and fee for each TO shall reflect:

a) Proposed labor resources per contract year multiplied by the proposed FBRs per Standard

Labor Category (SLC)

b) Overtime cost (if proposed)

c) Proposed cost of non-labor resources

d) Applied indirect cost to non-labor resources

e) Proposed fee

Price and Probable Cost for Selection Purposes

The results of the Government’s cost and price evaluation of each TO will be presented to the

Source Selection Authority (SSA) for consideration in making the source selection for that TO.

Firm-Fixed Price IDIQ

M-6

The Government will assess price analysis. If the Government cannot determine the price for a TO to be realistic, the Government will ask clarification questions or request for more data to support the price proposal. The Government will perform price analysis where appropriate, in accordance with FAR 15.305-Proposal Evaluation, and FAR 15.404-Proposal Analysis Techniques. A price analysis will be performed if the SLPT cannot make a determination based solely on price analysis per TO. If the SLPT determines that a cost analysis is necessary, it will request more data to support the price proposal. For purposes of proposal evaluation and source selection, the proposed price for each TO shall reflect:

a) The application of the proposed Offeror’s labor resources per year multiplied by the proposed year FBRs per Standard Labor Category (SLC).

b) Overtime cost (of proposed)

c) Proposed cost of non-labor resources

d) Applied indirect cost to non-labor resources

e) Proposed profit

Price and Probable Cost for Selection Purposes

The price of all proposals within each TO will be presented to the Source Selection Authority

(SSA) for consideration in making the source selection for that TO.

M.5 VOLUME III - PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR

Each CLIN will be evaluated individually for Past Performance.

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.16.6. A past performance confidence rating will be assigned for each CLIN proposed to by an Offeror.

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 and similar systems of other governmental

M-7 departments and agencies, Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) channels, interviews with client program managers and COs, 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 will be assigned a rating of neutral.

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

Recency: Only contract period of performances within five (5) years from the date of the REMIS original solicitation will be considered in the past performance evaluation. Within this five (5) 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. 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.

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. Contracts with both Government and Non-Government customers which demonstrate the Offeror’s commercial approach will receive greater consideration in the performance confidence rating.

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.

M-8

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 REMIS 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 past performance of the prime contractor will be weighted more heavily than any major subcontractor or combination of major subcontractors in the overall past performance evaluation.

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.

M-9

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.” Offered 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 with 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-10

M.6 VOLUME IV - RESPONSIBILITY CONSIDERATIONS

An Offeror must be considered to be responsible for award in accordance with FAR 9.104. CO will be 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 CO may choose to evaluate this information for the Offerors in the Competitive Range or the apparent Successful Offeror only.

A. 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 DCAA and shall provide evidence as to the adequacy of their accounting system as determined by the Government. If a determination of adequacy of an Offeror’s accounting system has not been made by the

Government (normally DCAA), then the Offeror shall complete the “Pre-award Survey of

Prospective Contractor Accounting System Checklist” found in Attachment L-9 and provide a copy of that document with Volume IV, Responsibility Considerations. 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.

(End of Provision)

M.7 VOLUME V – MODEL CONTRACT

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.

M-11

[END OF SECTION]