RFP Attachment 10 - Section M.pdf

RFP Attachment 10

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

M.1.0 Source Selection

M1.1 Basis for Contract Award

The Performance Price Tradeoff approach is a tradeoff source selection methodology on the Best Value Continuum that permits a tradeoff between price and performance in reaching the award decision; Past Performance is significantly more important than Price. The Government intends to award a single award Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract as a result of this solicitation. In using the best value approach, the Government seeks to award to the offeror who gives the Government the greatest confidence that it will best meet or exceed our requirements, price and present/past performance considered. Tradeoffs may be made between present/past performance and cost/price, with present/past performance considered significantly more important than cost/price. In this approach, the Source Selection Authority (SSA) has the discretion to award to offeror with a higher Performance Confidence rating, if the price differential is warranted. To arrive at a best value decision, the SSA will integrate the source selection team’s evaluations of the factors and subfactors described in this solicitation. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the tradeoff process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the selection process.

Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal conforms to all required terms and conditions, includes all required representations and certifications, meets all requirements set forth in the RFP, and provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation as described in the sections below.

Clearance. Include Top Secret Facility Clearance Level (FCL) documentation IAW the PWS and the DD Form 254 (RFP Attachment 3). An offeror without a Top Secret FCL will not be permitted as the prime contractor. Offerors shall possess an FCL equal to the requirement on the DD254 without additional authorization (i.e. National Interest Determination (NID)) by the proposal due date. The Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) work will take place at a Government facility. If an offeror does not have the required FCL at the time of proposal submission, the proposal will not be evaluated and is not eligible for award. However, a Top Secret FCL is not required for a Joint Venture (JV) itself if the Offeror is an unpopulated JV and all members of the JV possess a Top Secret FCL. A JV without its own FCL will not have access to classified information and all access will solely be through the cleared JV members. Therefore, a JV without its own FCL is required to submit, as part of its proposal, a Security Plan/Standard Operating Procedure which, at a minimum, includes the following:

a. Identification of the JV members that will be responsible for implementing and managing all security program requirements.

b. A description of the JV and JV members’ roles and responsibilities to ensure compliance with 32 CFR Part 117, NISPOM.

c. A copy of the JV agreement(s) relating to the establishment of the JV and any subcontracts awarded to the individual JV members as they relate to this RFP and all security responsibilities.

d. A completed Standard Form 328, “Certificate Pertaining to Foreign Interests” for the JV.

e. Execute a formal exclusion resolution stating that the JV will not require and will not have access to classified information.

f. The JV members and all subcontractors shall execute similar resolutions excluding the JV from access to classified information.

M.1.2 Number of Contracts The Government intends to award a single award IDIQ contract and one (1) initial Task Order concurrently.

M.1.3 Competitive Advantage from Use of GFP The Government will eliminate any competitive advantage resulting from an offeror's proposed use of Government Furnished Property (GFP).

M.1.4 Correction Potential of Proposals The Government intends to award a contract without discussions with offerors. However, the Government reserves the right to enter discussions if it is determined to be in the Government’s best interest. The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential" of any deficiency or weakness. The judgment of such "correction potential" is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of an offeror's proposal does not meet the Government's requirements and is not considered correctable, the offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range. Those offers which fail to meet the material requirement of the RFP will be deemed unacceptable and removed from further consideration.

M2.0 EVALUATION FACTORS

By submission of its offer, the offeror agrees to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors. The tradeoff will occur only between the present/past performance factor and the price factor. Failure to adhere to all solicitation requirements may result in an offer being determined unacceptable and ineligible for further evaluation. The determination to eliminate an offeror from further evaluation, for failure to adhere to solicitation requirements, is at the Government’s sole discretion. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. The evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

M2.1 The Proposal Evaluation Step I– Cost/Price Proposal Evaluation

1) Starting with the lowest TEP offered, cost/price proposals will be evaluated for cost/price reasonableness, completeness, and balance using one or more of the techniques described in FAR

15.404. The Professional Employee Compensation Plan will be evaluated for realism and is separate from the TEP evaluation. Offerors whose TEP is unreasonable, incomplete, or unbalanced, or whose Professional Employee Compensation Plan is considered unrealistic may not be considered for award. The price evaluation will document Reasonableness, Completeness, Balance, Professional Employee Compensation Realism as defined below.

2) Cost/Price Reasonableness. The proposed costs and prices will be evaluated for reasonableness.

Analysis of proposals will be performed using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404- 1 to determine reasonableness. Reasonableness must represent a cost/price to the Government a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business (FAR 31.201- 3(a)). Normally, cost/price reasonableness is established through adequate price competition but may be determined through analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404-1.

3) Completeness. A proposal is complete when all pricing data required in RFP Attachments 4 and 5 are provided in the format prescribed. Further, all “Green” shaded cells within RFP Attachment 5, Professional Comp Matrix, are completed, as applicable. Submission of an incomplete proposal may result in rejection of the proposal.

4) Balanced Pricing. Proposals will be reviewed for unbalanced pricing. The Government will evaluate any supporting information provided by offerors explaining variances that appear unbalanced.

Evaluated offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be deemed ineligible for award by the PCO if a determination is made that lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total price, the price of one or more line items is significantly over or understated as demonstrated by application of price analysis techniques.

5) Realism of Professional Employee Compensation Plan. Offerors’ proposed Professional Compensation Plan will be evaluated in accordance with FAR 52.222-46 -- Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees. Failure to demonstrate a realistic Professional Compensation Plan may render a proposal ineligible for award on the basis that the Offeror does not understand the requirement or proposed unrealistically low professional compensation.

The compensation levels proposed should address all aspects of FAR 52.222-46, should reflect a clear understanding of work to be performed and should indicate the capability of the proposed compensation structure to obtain and keep suitably qualified personnel to meet mission objectives. The salary rates or ranges must take into account differences in skills, the complexity of various disciplines, and professional job difficulty.

The Government will compare proposed rates to the incumbent’s rates. The Government will validate the offeror's supporting data and may use a variety of resources and methods to evaluate the realism of the offeror’s Professional Compensation Plan. This includes but is not limited to:

comparing prices paid on prior or similar contracts, market data from one or multiple sources (e.g.

Watson & Wyatt, Economic Research Institute, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Salary.com, etc.), or a combination of the above. The offeror’s proposed professional compensation data may be evaluated at detailed or aggregate levels, or both.

Offerors’ proposed labor category rates (base hourly rate plus fringe) which are within (no lower than) 20% of the average of all data utilized for that labor category will be considered realistic for the purposes of this evaluation. Should one (1) or more labor categories be determined unrealistic, this does not necessarily mean the entire proposal is unrealistic; as stated above, an aggregate view of the proposal may be utilized.

Additionally, in accordance with FAR 52.222-46(b), proposals envisioning compensation levels lower than incumbent prices for the same work will be evaluated on the basis of maintaining program continuity, uninterrupted high-quality work, and availability of required competent professional service employees. Offerors are cautioned that lowered compensation for essentially the same professional work may indicate lack of sound management judgment and lack of understanding of the requirement.

The proposed fringe benefits offered in the Professional Compensation Plan Narrative will be evaluated to ensure coverage of basic national benefit categories to include, but not limited to: life insurance, disability, medical insurance, retirement/401k plans, and paid time off.

Offerors are cautioned to present their best proposal upfront. The Government may award without discussions but reserves the right to conduct discussions if in the Government's best interests.

The burden is on the offeror to clearly and specifically demonstrate and explain proposed pricing.

Vague overstatements of reliance on supporting data and/or external tools may not be sufficient.

6) Total Evaluated Price (TEP). The TEP will be calculated by multiplying the offeror’s proposed fully burdened rate for each labor category (FFP and CPFF) by the Government’s workload estimate and summing the results, to include the Government’s Equipment/ Travel/ODC estimate, to determine the subtotal for each fiscal year period to include all seven and a half (7.5) years of the ordering period for CLINs X001 to X007. The subtotals for each year period will be summed to determine the TEP. The Government will provide the Equipment/Travel/ODC amount for all years of the ordering period. This number shall not be altered. If offeror maps more than one labor category to any of the labor categories listed in Attachment 4 tabs, the offeror may re-apportion the Government’s estimated workload hours within that category; however, total labor hours shall equal the total labor hours provided for each labor category provided in RFP Attachment 4, TEP. In the event the offeror either fails to include the re-apportioned hours, or if the hours are less than the Government’s estimated workload hours, the Government will divide the estimated annual workload listed in Attachment 4 equally among each of the offeror’s proposed labor categories for purposes of calculating the TEP (See example giving in section L4.2.2(c)).

M2.2 Step II – Technical Proposal Evaluation

Next, once it is determined which offeror has the lowest “Acceptable” TEP, considering all the factors mentioned in section M.2.1, that offeror’s Technical Proposal will be evaluated. The Government will evaluate proposals for technical acceptability on an “Acceptable/Unacceptable” basis. If the lowest TEP offeror receives an “Acceptable” technical evaluation rating, evaluation of that proposal will continue to Step III Present/Past Performance. If the lowest TEP offeror receives an “Unacceptable” technical evaluation rating, evaluation of that proposal will stop and will be deemed un awardable. In that instance, the Government will continue the evaluation process, in order by price, with the next lowest TEP offer, until an offeror receives an “Acceptable” technical evaluation rating. A proposal that receives an “Acceptable” technical evaluation rating is considered technically acceptable. Those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, will be considered for award.

The technical factor will receive one (1) overall rating of either an “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” based on the evaluation of Subfactor 1, Subfactor 2, and Subfactor 3. To receive an “Acceptable” rating, all three (3) subfactors must receive an “Acceptable” rating” on their respective evaluation below. Any rating of “Unacceptable” will stop any further evaluation of that proposal.

Technical Subfactor 1 – TECHNICAL EVALUATION RATINGS Top Secret Level Contractor Facility Clearance Rating Description Acceptable The offeror has clearly demonstrated, through submission of adequate documentation, and provided verifiable proof/evidence that they possess and maintain a TOP SECRET facility clearance (FCL) issued by the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) and ensure the FCL is documented in the National Industrial Security System (NISS).

Unacceptable The offeror has not clearly demonstrated, through submission of adequate documentation, and provided verifiable proof/evidence that they possess maintain a TOP SECRET facility clearance (FCL) issued by the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) and ensure the FCL is documented in the National Industrial Security System (NISS).

Technical Subfactor 2 – TECHNICAL EVALUATION RATINGS Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information (TS/SCI) Cleared Rating Description Acceptable The offeror has clearly demonstrated, through submission of adequate documentation, and provided verifiable proof/evidence that key management personnel, along with all technical personnel performing classified work on this contract, are eligible for access to TOP SECRET information. In addition, all individuals working within any AFTAC sensitive compartmented information facility (SCIF) to train AFTAC staff and/or to install software deliverables are ICD 704 eligible based on a current T5, T5R investigation or continuous evaluation (CE) date. This eligibility for access must be available at contract award in accordance with PWS (RFP Attachment 1) Paragraph 5.4.

Unacceptable The offeror has not clearly demonstrated, through submission of adequate documentation, and did not provide verifiable proof/evidence that key management personnel, along with all technical personnel performing classified work on this contract, are eligible for access to TOP SECRET information. In addition, all individuals working within any AFTAC sensitive compartmented information facility (SCIF) to train AFTAC staff and/or to install software deliverables are ICD 704 eligible based on a current T5, T5R investigation or continuous evaluation (CE) date. This eligibility for access must be available at contract award in accordance with PWS (RFP Attachment 1) Paragraph 5.4.

Technical Subfactor 3 - TECHNICAL EVALUATION RATINGS Technical approach to Task Order 1 Rating Description Acceptable The offeror has clearly demonstrated, through the submission of adequate documentation detailing their Technical Approach to MOSES II Task Order 01 (RFP Attachment 8), that they have technical expertise to perform O&M of current MOSES systems to include:

a) AIMS

b) SPOT

c) HEF

d) GeoWATCH

e) SOMIS

f) Weather Models

g) Transport Dispersion Models

And the offeror has demonstrated an acceptable mix of labor categories/labor hours.

Unacceptable The offeror has not clearly demonstrated, through the submission of adequate documentation detailing their Technical Approach to MOSES II Task Order 01 (RFP Attachment 8), that they have technical expertise to perform O&M of current MOSES systems to include:

a) AIMS

b) SPOT

c) HEF

d) GeoWATCH

e) SOMIS

f) Weather Models

g) Transport Dispersion Models

And the offeror has not demonstrated an acceptable mix of labor categories/labor hours.

M2.3 STEP III PRESENT/PAST PERFORMANCE

Next, once the Government has determined the offeror with the lowest “Acceptable” TEP, considering all the factors mentioned in section M2.1, and receives an “Acceptable” in the technical rating, the government will then evaluate the offeror’s present/past performance in order to assign an overall performance confidence assessment rating. The present/past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the Government’s confidence in the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements.

Evaluation Process The present/past performance evaluation will result in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the PWS requirements. The present/past performance evaluation will consider an offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying the services that meet the contract’s requirements. The recency and relevance of the present/past performance information, the quality of performance, source of the information and context of the data will be considered. All this information will then be combined to establish one performance confidence assessment rating for each offeror that is evaluated for present/past performance.

The present/past performance evaluation also includes applicable critical subcontractors/joint venture members demonstrated recent, relevant, and quality record of performance provided by the offeror. Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Present/Past Performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the offeror’s recent and relevant present/past performance. In conducting the Present/Past Performance evaluation, the Government will contact all references listed in the RFP Attachment 6, Present/Past Performance Information Sheet, to validate past performance information submitted by offerors. Therefore, the offeror shall ensure that accurate contact information is provided for all references. The Government will make reasonable attempts to contact the listed Point of Contact (POCs). If the Government is unable to reach the listed POCs after reasonable attempts, the Government will not consider that reference. The Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the offeror’s Present/Past Performance proposal volume and information obtained from other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Present/Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases;

the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA); the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA);

and interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Fee Determining Officials.

Recency Assessment An assessment of the present/past performance information will first be made to determine if it is recent.

To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past five (5) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Present/Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated for relevance or quality.

Relevancy Assessment Next, the Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent present/past performance information obtained to determine how closely the services performed under those contracts relate to the requirements of this solicitation. The Government will assign a relevancy rating using the following relevancy definitions when assessing each recent past performance citation:

TABLE 4 – Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method

Rating Definition VERY RELEVANT Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

RELEVANT Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

SOMEWHAT

RELEVANT

Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

NOT RELEVANT Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

For each recent present/past performance record reviewed, the scope of work performed will generally be assessed as follows:

Essentially the Same Scope will include most (6 or more) of the following areas:

a) Develop, maintain, and support software capabilities on AIMS.

b) Develop, maintain, and support software capabilities on SPOT.

c) Develop, maintain, and support software capabilities on HEF.

d) Develop, maintain, and support software capabilities on GeoWATCH.

e) Develop, maintain, and support software capabilities on SOMIS.

f) Develop, maintain, and support software capabilities on Weather Models.

g) Develop, maintain, and support software capabilities on Transport Dispersion Models.

Similar Scope will include, as a minimum four (4) of the following:

a) Develop, maintain, and support software capabilities on AIMS.

b) Develop, maintain, and support software capabilities on SPOT.

c) Develop, maintain, and support software capabilities on HEF.

d) Develop, maintain, and support software capabilities on GeoWATCH.

e) Develop, maintain, and support software capabilities on SOMIS.

f) Develop, maintain, and support software capabilities on Weather Models.

g) Develop, maintain, and support software capabilities on Transport Dispersion Models.

Some of the Scope will include, as a minimum three (3) of the following:

a) Develop, maintain, and support software capabilities on AIMS.

b) Develop, maintain, and support software capabilities on SPOT.

c) Develop, maintain, and support software capabilities on HEF.

d) Develop, maintain, and support software capabilities on GeoWATCH.

e) Develop, maintain, and support software capabilities on SOMIS.

f) Develop, maintain, and support software capabilities on Weather Models.

g) Develop, maintain, and support software capabilities on Transport Dispersion Models.

Little or None of the Scope will include less than three (3) of the following:

a) Develop, maintain, and support software capabilities on AIMS.

b) Develop, maintain, and support software capabilities on SPOT.

c) Develop, maintain, and support software capabilities on HEF.

d) Develop, maintain, and support software capabilities on GeoWATCH.

e) Develop, maintain, and support software capabilities on SOMIS.

f) Develop, maintain, and support software capabilities on Weather Models.

g) Develop, maintain, and support software capabilities on Transport Dispersion Models.

A relevancy determination of the offeror’s present/past performance will be made based upon the DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 4 – Present/Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method, shown above. Where a relevant performance record indicates performance problems, the Government will consider the number and severity of the problems and the appropriateness and effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised). The Government may review more recent contracts or performance evaluations to ensure corrective actions have been implemented and to evaluate their effectiveness. The Government is not bound by an offerors’ opinion of a project’s relevancy. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the offeror, critical subcontractors/joint venture members whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated.

With respect to relevancy, present/past performance of greater relevancy will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the present/past performance confidence assessment than present/past performance of lesser relevance.

Quality Record of Performance The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, very relevant, relevant, and somewhat relevant efforts (how well the contractor performed on the contracts) in determining the overall performance confidence assessment rating. The quality assessment consists of an evaluation of all present/past performance information available, regardless of its source. Performance information from any source will be incorporated into the performance confidence assessment. The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as present/past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements.

Assigning Performance Confidence Ratings As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, the technically acceptable offeror will receive an integrated overall performance confidence assessment rating. The Performance Confidence Assessment ratings include Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Neutral Confidence, Limited Confidence, or No Confidence, as defined in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 5 – Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method, shown below. Present/Past performance regarding predecessor companies or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement will be rated as highly as present/past performance information for the principal offeror. The resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance. In the case of offerors for which there is no information on present/past contract performance or where present/past contract performance information is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the present/past contract performance factor (FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). In this case, the offeror’s present/past performance is unknown and assigned a performance confidence rating of “neutral”. Likewise, a more relevant present/past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance.

TABLE 5 - Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method

Adjectival Rating Description

Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence

No recent/relevant performance record is available, or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of present/past performance.

Limited Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Best Value Determination

If the offeror with the lowest “Acceptable” TEP, considering all the factors mentioned in section M.2.1, receives an “Acceptable” in the technical rating, and is judged to have a “Substantial Confidence” performance confidence assessment rating and is determined to be responsible, that offer represents the best value for the government and the evaluation process stops at this point. Award shall be made to that offeror without further consideration of any other offers.

If the offeror with the lowest “Acceptable” TEP, considering all the factors mentioned in section M.2.1, receives an “Acceptable” in the technical rating, and is not judged to have a “Substantial Confidence” performance confidence assessment rating, the next lowest TEP offeror will be evaluated utilizing the methodology above, and the process will continue (in order by price) until an offeror is judged to have an acceptable TEP, an acceptable technical rating, and a substantial confidence performance confidence assessment rating or until all offerors are evaluated. At that point, whichever occurs first, the Source Selection Authority will then make an integrated assessment best value award decision. The SSA performs this assessment by comparing the performance confidence and the cost/price of all evaluated, technically acceptable proposals to determine which proposal represents the best value to the Government.

Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and, in the format, specified in the proposal preparation instructions to permit a meaningful assessment of present/past performance.

Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal or respond to adverse present/past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond.

Adverse present/past performance is defined as present/past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system. Clarifications conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions and the contracting officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.

The government intends to award a contract without discussions with respective offerors. The government, however, reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest. The government reserves the right to award one or no contract at all, depending on the quality of proposals submitted.

M3.0 SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as factors or subfactors.

Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being ineligible for award. Offerors shall clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and shall provide complete supporting rationale.