ESSCA_RFP_Section_M.docx

NNM16568754R SECTION M

SECTION M

Evaluation Factors for Award

Award without discussions

RESPONSIBILITY DETERMINATION FOR OFFEROR

52.217-5 EVALUATION OF OPTIONS (JUL 1990)

SOURCE SELECTION AND EVALUATION FACTORS – GENERAL

Volume I - Mission Suitability Factor Volume II – Cost Factor Volume III - Past Performance Factor

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Award Without Discussions As provided for in FAR 52.215-1, Instructions to Offerors--Competitive Acquisitions, the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with Offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). Therefore, the Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer (CO) later determines them to be necessary. If the CO determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the CO may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals (see NFS 1815.306(c)(2)).

(End of provision)

Responsibility Determination For Offeror The CO will make the Responsibility Determination in accordance with FAR 9.104 prior to award.

(End of provision)

52.217-5 Evaluation of Options (JUL 1990) Except when it is determined in accordance with FAR 17.206(b) not to be in the Government's best interests, the Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. Evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

(End of provision)

Source Selection and Evaluation Factors – General

1. Source Selection

This competitive negotiated acquisition will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.3, Source Selection, and NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) 1815.3, Source Selection. The Source Evaluation Board (SEB) procedures at NFS 1815.370, NASA Source Evaluation Boards, and/or any deviations approved by the NASA Associate Administrator for Procurement will apply.

The attention of Offerors is particularly directed to NFS 1815.305, Proposal Evaluation and to NFS 1815.305-70, Identification of Unacceptable Proposals.

A best value trade-off process, as described at FAR 15.101-1, Tradeoff Process, will be used in making the source selection. The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon the three evaluation factors. Award will be made to the Offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR, and whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements and is judged to represent the best value to the Government. In using the best value approach, the Government seeks to award to the Offeror who gives NASA the greatest confidence that it will best meet or exceed the requirements affordably. This could result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced Offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors delineated herein and the SSA reasonably determines that the technical superiority and/or superior past performance of the higher priced Offeror outweighs the cost difference. Additionally, the SSA may reject all proposals received in response to this solicitation, if doing so is in the best interest of the Government. To arrive at a best value decision, the SSA will integrate the SEB’s evaluations of the evaluation factors described below.

Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

The evaluation factors are Mission Suitability, Cost, and Past Performance. These factors, as described at NFS 1815.304-70, NASA Evaluation Factors, will be used to evaluate each proposal. Only the Mission Suitability Volume is numerically scored. Consistency among Volumes I, II, and III will be evaluated in Mission Suitability under MTA1: Management Approach. Volume IV will also be reviewed for completeness. Inconsistencies between Volume IV and other volumes may adversely impact the Offeror’s Mission Suitability score and may make the Offeror’s proposal ineligible for award without discussions.

Relative Order of Importance of Evaluation Factors

While only the Mission Suitability Volume is numerically scored, in order to provide Offerors with an indication of the relative importance of the three factors, the following information is furnished in accordance with FAR 15.304(e): Mission Suitability, Cost, and Past Performance are considered to be essentially equal to each other. Therefore, all evaluation factors other than cost, when combined, are significantly more important than cost.

Source Evaluation Board (SEB)

The SEB was appointed by the SSA to evaluate the offers submitted for the Request for Proposal (RFP). All members are Government civil servants, except as noted. Proposal documentation requirements set forth in this RFP are designed to provide guidance to Offerors concerning the type of documentation that shall be submitted to the SEB.

The voting members of the SEB are:

Eric Melkerson (Chair) Anita Ayers William Jacobs Charles “David” Mixson Terry Ware

The SEB Recorder (Non-Voting) is:

Teresa Manning (Al-Razaq Computing Services)

The source selection decision will be made by Jody Singer, Deputy Center Director, George C. Marshall Space Flight Center.

(End of provision)

Volume I - Mission Suitability Factor

1. The Offeror’s proposed approach to meeting the requirements of the contemplated contract will be evaluated for how clearly and completely the proposal satisfies the requirements and the inherent challenges associated with accomplishing the objectives of this procurement. The completeness and validity of the response will be evaluated. The adjectival rating system and definitions set forth in NFS 1815.305(a)(3)(A) will be utilized in the evaluation of Mission Suitability.

(b) The Mission Suitability factor assesses the excellence of the proposed approach for satisfying the PWS and the Offeror’s ability to perform. The Offeror’s proposed approach to meeting the requirements of the contemplated contract will be evaluated for how clearly and completely the proposal satisfies the requirements of this solicitation.

(c) Overall lack of cost realism will be considered in accordance with NFS 1815.304-70 and may significantly affect the Mission Suitability score.

(d) The subfactors to be used in evaluating Mission Suitability and their corresponding weights are listed below:

The numerical weights assigned to the three subfactors identified above are indicative of the relative importance of those evaluation areas. However, the order of the subfactor elements discussed within each Subfactor (e.g., MTA1: Management Approach, MTA2: Teaming and Organizational Structure) are chosen for narrative purposes and do not reflect relative importance.

Proposals will be assessed, assigned strengths and weaknesses, and scored based on the Mission Suitability subfactors listed below.

1. Subfactor A - Management and Technical Approach (MTA)

This Subfactor will be used to evaluate the Offeror’s proposed management and technical approach for providing the services delineated in Attachment J-1, Performance Work Statement. The Offeror’s proposed approach plus any additional evidence of capability to successfully execute the requirements in a timely manner while maintaining appropriate cost control measures will be evaluated.

5. MTA1. Management Approach

The Offeror’s proposed management approach for providing flexible, effective, and efficient implementation of the ESSCA contract requirements will be evaluated.

5. MTA2. Teaming and Organizational Structure

The Offeror’s proposed teaming and organizational structure will be evaluated.

5. MTA3. ATOMS Approach

The Offeror’s proposed approach to the ATOMS as defined in Attachment J-8, Automated Task Order Management System (ATOMS) Requirements and Processes will be evaluated.

5. MTA4. Phase-In Plan

The Offeror’s comprehensive Phase-In Plan will be evaluated.

5. MTA5. Sample Tasks

The Offeror’s proposed staffing and implementation approach for the two Sample Tasks identified in Attachments L-1 and L-2 will be evaluated.

5. MTA6. Technology, Innovations, and Process Improvements

The Offeror’s proposed approach to identifying and promoting new technology, innovations, best practices and process improvements will be evaluated.

5. MTA7. Education and Outreach

The Offeror’s proposed approach for engaging the public with educational and outreach activities will be evaluated.

5. MTA8. Cost Control Approach

The Offeror’s proposed cost control approach, including the effect of the ESSCA contract on the Offeror’s proposed indirect rate structure, will be evaluated.

5. MTA9. Safety, Health, and Environmental Approach

The Offeror’s proposed approach for implementing its Safety, Health, and Environmental (SHE) program and ensuring a safe working environment is provided for employees will be evaluated.

1. Subfactor B – Staffing and Total Compensation (STC)

This Subfactor will be used to evaluate the Offeror’s proposed approach for staffing and total compensation.

6. STC1. Staffing Approach

The Offeror’s proposed staffing approach to timely recruiting and retention of services will be evaluated.

6. STC2. Total Compensation Plan

The Offeror’s proposed total compensation plan will be evaluated.

6. STC3. Key Personnel

The Offeror’s proposed Program Manager’s qualifications, work history, and commitment to the contract will be evaluated.

1. Subfactor C – Small Business Utilization (SB)

7. SB1. Small Business Subcontracting

The Offeror’s proposed Small Business Subcontracting Plan and proposed goals will be evaluated.

7. SB2. Commitment to Small Businesses

The Offeror’s proposed commitment to small businesses will be evaluated.

(End of provision)

Volume II – Cost Factor

(a) Definitions: Offerors should refer to FAR 2.101(b) for a definition of “cost realism” and to FAR 15.404-1(d) for a discussion of “cost realism analysis” and “probable cost.”

(b) Assessment of Probable Cost

(1) The Government will perform a cost analysis of the Offeror’s proposed fully burdened, composite IDIQ labor rates and other direct cost burden rates proposed in Attachment J-7, Rates Schedule and Labor Categories. The proposed fully burdened, composite labor rates and other direct cost burden rates for each year of the contract will be assessed to determine reasonableness and realism (including the impact of proposed uncompensated overtime). The evaluation will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(1) and NFS 1815.305(a)(1)(A) and (B). Upward or downward adjustments may be made to the proposed rates as a result of the assessment of cost realism. This can include adjustments to all proposed direct and indirect rates. The Cost Factor, although not scored numerically, is relevant in determining the Offeror’s proposed understanding of the contract and its resource requirements and will be evaluated. The Offeror’s proposed cost for the contract requirements will be a Government-calculated IDIQ cost using the Offeror-provided fully burdened, composite labor rates applied to a Government model of labor hours, and Offeror-provided burden rates applied to a Government-provided estimate for travel, training, ODCs, and material (see paragraph (c) below for further explanation of this calculation).

(2) The Government assessment of the “probable cost adjustment” with each Offeror, possible cost growth during the course of the contract, and features that could cause a given proposal to cost more or less than proposed will be included in this evaluation.

(3) The proposed fee rate will be applied as proposed by the Offeror to the Government calculated IDIQ proposed cost. The calculated fee amount will not be adjusted and will be included in the probable cost.

(4) Each Offeror’s proposed Phase-In price for the separate Phase-In purchase order will be identified separately from the probable cost. Adjustments to the proposed Phase-In price will not be made by the SEB.

(c) Government-Calculated IDIQ Value

(1) The Government will compute a value (cost and fee) for each year of the contract utilizing the “Government Worksheet-IDIQ Cost Model” provided below. This IDIQ Cost Model will be used for evaluation purposes only. In computing the cost, the fully burdened, composite IDIQ labor rates provided by the Offeror in Attachment J-7, Rates Schedule and Labor Categories and Attachment L-3A, Costing Forms IDIQ, Tabs A-1 through A-8, will be applied to a Government predetermined allotment of hours for each labor category to calculate a Subtotal Labor cost. The burden rates proposed by the Offeror in Attachment J-7 and Attachment L-3A, Costing Forms IDIQ, Tabs A-1 through A-1 through A-8, will be applied to Government predetermined amounts for travel, training, ODCs, and material to calculate a Subtotal Other Direct Cost. These subtotals will be summed to obtain a Total Cost. In computing the value, the fee rate proposed by the Offeror in Attachment J-7, Rates Schedule and Labor Categories will be applied to cost as proposed by the Offeror to calculate a Total Award Fee amount. The Total Cost and Total Award Fee amount will be summed to obtain a Total Proposed Government IDIQ Cost Model Value.

(2) The Government’s estimated skill mix of WYE hours will not be provided to the Offeror, but will be included in the Government Source Evaluation Plan approved by the SSA.

GOVERNMENT WORKSHEET – IDIQ COST MODEL

Labor Category

SME-3

x

SME-2

x

SME-1

x

ES-5

x

ES-4

x

ES-3

x

ES-2

x

ES-1

x

ET-6

x

ET-5

x

ET-4

x

ET-3

x

ET-2

x

ET-1

x

Sub-total Labor Cost

Travel, Training, and Other Direct Cost

$800,000

Material Cost

$3,900,000

Burden on Travel, Training, Other Direct Cost (ODC), and Material Cost

G&A on Travel, Training, ODC, and Material Cost

Sub-total Direct Cost

Total Award Fee

Total Cost Plus Award Fee

NOTE: This worksheet is for informational purposes only, Offerors shall not complete this Government Worksheet. Labor hours will be calculated by multiplying the Government’s anticipated WYE’s (by labor category) by the Offeror’s productive hours.

(d) Reporting to the SSA

The Government-calculated proposed cost and fee and the evaluated probable cost and fee will be presented to the Source Selection Authority.

(End of provision)

Volume III – Past Performance Factor In accordance with the FAR 15.305(a)(2) and NFS 1815.304-70(d), the Offeror’s overall corporate past performance, to include the corporate past performance of any proposed subcontractors, will be evaluated. This area is not numerically scored, but is assigned an adjectival rating and reported to the Source Selection Authority (SSA) for consideration in making a selection. Strengths and weaknesses will be assigned. The adjectival rating system/definitions set forth in NFS 1815.305(a)(2)(A) will be utilized in the evaluation of past performance. However, an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv).

If an Offeror is a newly established joint venture and cannot provide past performance contracts in the name of the joint venture, past performance will be evaluated for each participant.

The past performance evaluation will be based on information provided by the Offeror in its Past Performance Factor Volume (Volume III), completed past performance questionnaires (Attachment L-5, Past Performance Interview/Questionnaire Form), and any other information obtained independently by the SEB. All pertinent information, including customer assessments and any Offeror rebuttals, if appropriate, will be made part of the evaluation records and included in the evaluation.

(a) The Offeror-provided past performance descriptions and information in Volume III will be evaluated. The quality of Offeror’s overall relevant past performance with other contracts comparable in size, scope, complexity, and (to a lesser extent) contract type to the requirements of the proposed ESSCA contract will be evaluated.

(b) In addition to Offeror provided performance information, completed past performance questionnaires, Federal Government Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) database records, and other performance information known to the Source Evaluation Board (SEB) will be considered in the evaluation.

(c) The Offeror’s OSHA reportable injury rates (Days Away From Work Injury or Illness (DAFWII) and Total Case Rate (TCR)) shall be evaluated. The DAFWII and TCR will be segregated by North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for each referenced contract and evaluated by averaging the DAFWII and TCR data by the applicable NAICS code. These averages shall be compared to the latest available Department of Labor (DOL) Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) DAFWII and TCR national averages for the applicable NAICS code.

(End of provision)

[END OF SECTION]

M-3