FCSA RFP Sec M_sb.pdf

DRAFT QTA-010-CTA-0010

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1 Evaluation Approach

The Government anticipates awarding multiple contracts from this solicitation to the responsible Offerors whose proposals are the most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. When conducting the evaluation, the Government will consider data included by Offerors in their proposals, as well as data obtained from other sources.

The Government will make determinations of Offeror responsibility in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 9.1, Responsible Prospective Contractors, using information provided by Offerors and information available from other sources. The Government also reserves the right to determine the responsibility of prospective subcontractors.

Proposals shall be prepared in accordance with the instructions in Section L. For an offer to be eligible for award, the Offeror must agree to all terms and conditions of the solicitation and must not receive a rating of Unacceptable for the Technical/ Management factor.

The following factors will be used to evaluate proposals:

M.1.1 Factor 1 – Technical/Management Approach

• Sample Task Order #1 – Satellite Internet Protocol (IP) Services

• Sample Task Order #2 – Satellite Based Distance Learning System for USGO

• Sample Task Order #3 – Satellite Systems Engineering and Technical Support

Services

• Sample Task Order #4 – Continuity of Operations (COOP) Services. To be provided with the final RFP.

M.1.2 Factor 2 – Past Performance Past performance in the following solution types will be evaluated.

• Solution Type #1: Interactive Services

• Solution Type #2: Continuity of Operations (COOP)

• Solution Type #3: Broadcast Satellite Service (BSS)

• Solution Type #4: Emergency Responder Operations

• Solution Type #5: Direct Warfighter Operations

• Solution Type #6: Steady State Operations

M.1.3 Price To ensure fair, reasonable, and realistic prices, the Government will perform a price analysis on proposed prices for each sample task. The Government may reject any offer that is materially unbalanced in pricing such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program.

Relative Importance. Factor 1 (Technical/Management) is more important than Factor 2 (Past Performance). When combined, Technical/Management and Past Performance are significantly more important than Price.

M.2 Factor 1 - Technical/Management Approach The technical and management evaluation considers the Offeror’s response to each of the Section C Sample Task Orders (STOs) to determine the extent to which the Offeror’s approach to each STO demonstrates an understanding of the scope and complexity of the requirements, and the Offeror delivers a customized, End-to-End Solution satisfying the STO requirements. The Offeror’s approach to implementing, performing, and managing the four sample tasks with emphasis on the respective attributes will be evaluated. Each of the four STOs are of equal importance.

The Offeror will be evaluated on the STO using the specific criteria noted below. Within each STO, the criteria are weighted equally.

Sample Task Order #1 – Satellite Internet Protocol (IP) Services. The Offeror will be evaluated on the extent to which it addresses the following criteria as described in Section C:

Satellite Internet Protocol (IP) Services STO Evaluation Criteria

a) Prepared Service Plan i) Flexibility/Optimization

b) Selected Infrastructure j) Capacity

c) Site Configuration k) Coverage

d) Engineering Approach l) Network Monitoring (NetOps)

e) Sustainment Approach m) Net Ready (Interoperability)

f) Information Assurance

g) Responsiveness

h) Portability

Sample Task Order #2 – Satellite-Based Distance Learning System for USGO. The Offeror will be evaluated on the extent to which it addresses the following criteria as

M-2 described in Section C:

Satellite-Based Distance Learning System for USGO STO Evaluation Criteria

a) Prepared Service Plan i) Flexibility/Optimization

b) Selected Infrastructure j) Capacity

c) Engineering Approach k) Coverage

d) Site Configuration l) Network Monitoring (NetOps)

e) Bandwidth Management m) Net Ready (Interoperability)

f) Sustainment Approach

g) Information Assurance

h) Responsiveness

Sample Task Order #3 – Satellite Systems Engineering and Technical Support Services.

The Offeror will be evaluated on the extent to which it addresses the following criteria as described in Section C:

Satellite Systems Engineering and Technical Support Services STO Evaluation Criteria

a) Engineering Design Support i) Flexibility/Optimization

b) Engineering & Technical Support j) Capacity

c) Test & Evaluation Support k) EMI/RFI Identification, Characterization, Geo-location

d) Information Assurance Accreditation Support

l) Security

e) Implementation Support

f) Operational Support

g) Training Support

h) Information Assurance

Sample Task Order #4 – The evaluation criteria for the Continuity of Operations (COOP) Services STO will be provided in the final RFP.

M-3

M.3 Factor 2 – Past Performance Past performance will be evaluated based on the Offeror’s performance within the past 3 years on a maximum of six contracts or orders, including demonstrated corrective actions, references’ responses, and the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS). The Government may use data provided by the Offeror in its proposal and/or data obtained from other sources. The Offeror may include only their own past performance as a prime or subcontractor. See Section L for instructions.

Relevance means the Offeror’s demonstrated record of providing solutions of similar size, scope, and complexity to the following Section C required Solution Types:

Solution Type #1: Interactive Services Solution Type #2: Continuity of Operations (COOP) Solution Type #3: Broadcast Satellite Service (BSS) Solution Type #4: Emergency Responder Operations Solution Type #5: Direct Warfighter Operations Solution Type #6: Steady State Operations

The Government may consider conformance to contract requirements; standards of good workmanship; record of meeting schedule and delivery dates; business relations;

management of key personnel; management of subcontracts; and record of complying with subcontracting plan goals. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problems, mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions taken.

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 will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.

M.4 Factor 3 – Price A price reasonableness assessment will be conducted in accordance with FAR Subpart 15.404-1(b).

The Offeror’s price proposal will be based upon the STO pricing tables and will be evaluated, using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR Subpart 15.404, in order to determine if it is fair, reasonable, and realistic. For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. Normally, price reasonableness is established through price analysis techniques as described in FAR Subpart 15.404.

The Government will evaluate the realism of each Offerors’ proposed prices. This will include an evaluation of the extent to which proposed prices are sufficient for the work to be performed, reflective of a clear understanding of the requirements, and consistent

M-4 with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the Offeror’s technical proposal.

M.5 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)

M.6 Notice About Releasing Proposals

(1) The Government intends to disclose proposals received in response to this solicitation to nongovernment evaluators.

(2) Each evaluator will sign and provide to GSA a “Conflict of Interest Acknowledgment and Nondisclosure Agreement.”

Release of a proposal outside the Government for evaluation does not constitute the release of information under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552).

(END OF SECTION M)

M-5 https://www.acquisition.gov/far/current/html/Subpart 17_2.html#wp1078150

M.5 52.217-5 Evaluation of Options (JUL 1990)