RFP_Attch_20_Section M.pdf

SSP Attachment 5

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

I. Basis for Contract Award

A. Source Selection Methodology: This acquisition will utilize the Tradeoff source selection procedures in accordance with FAR 15.101-2 and 15.3 as supplemented by the DoD Source Selection Procedures referenced in DFARS 215.300 and the DAFFARS Mandatory Procedures 5315.3 to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. The Government intends to award one contract as a result of this solicitation. A decision on the technical acceptability of each offeror’s proposal will be made. For those offerors who are determined to be technically acceptable, tradeoffs may be made between technical risk and cost/price. Technical risk is considered significantly more important than cost/price. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced offeror where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the lower technical risk of the higher priced offeror outweighs the cost difference. 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 provision. 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. Offerors are reminded that the Government will only evaluate one proposal from each offeror.

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 also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation as described in paragraph II below.

II. Proposal Evaluation: The evaluation process will be accomplished as follows:

A. General

1. Discussions: The Government intends to award this contract after discussions, which will be held in accordance with FAR 15.306. The Government will consider all offerors that submit timely initial proposals to be within the initial competitive range for purposes of opening discussions promptly after the RFP closes. As a streamlining technique, discussions will be considered formally opened within 30 days after the RFP closes.

If the Contracting Officer 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 Contracting Officer, with the concurrence of the SSA, 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.

Throughout the course of proposal evaluations and discussions, the Government reserves the right to establish multiple competitive ranges in accordance with FAR 15.306(c)(3) and FAR 15.306(d)(5).

B. Gating:

An RFP compliance review will be conducted for all offerors that submit a timely initial proposal.

Proposals that are complete, in accordance with Volume I, and received before 4:30PM Eastern Standard Time on the solicitation closing/proposal response date will move to Gate 1. Incomplete, late, or non-compliant proposals will not proceed to Gate 1.

Gate 1: All offerors within Gate 1 shall have their Volume II, Written Technical Proposal evaluated in accordance with Section M. A technical acceptability rating and a technical risk rating will be applied to each subfactor. Furthermore, the Government will apply Government-estimated hours and base costs to each offeror’s submitted Volume III, Cost/Price Volume to calculate the Total Proposed Price (TPP). The five (5) offerors with the lowest TPP and determined to be technically acceptable in all subfactors and with a low technical risk rating in all subfactors will move to Gate 2.

In the event there are less than five (5) low technical risk rated offerors, offerors with the lowest TPP and determined technically acceptable in all subfactors and with the least amount of moderate technical risk ratings in all subfactors will move to Gate 2 until the number of offerors moved to Gate 2 equals five (5). All offerors evaluated and determined to be technically unacceptable, have any technical risk rating of high or unacceptable, and not in the group of five (5) lowest TPPs will remain in Gate 1.

Gate 2: A complete cost/price evaluation will be conducted for all offerors entering this gate in accordance with Section M. All offerors’ cost/price proposals evaluated and determined to have reasonable, balanced, and realistic prices will proceed into Gate 3. All offerors evaluated and determined to be unreasonable, unbalanced, and/or unrealistic will remain in Gate 2.

Gate 3: All offerors within Gate 3 will receive a Final Proposal Revision (FPR) Request in accordance with FAR 15.307(b). All offerors that submit a timely FPR and are evaluated as still meeting the exit criteria for Gates 1 and 2 will meet the Gate 3 exit criteria and move into Gate 4. Offerors that do not submit a timely FPR or the offeror’s FPR is evaluated as no longer meeting the exit criteria for Gates 1 and 2 will remain in Gate 3.

Gate 4: The SSA will make a best value decision IAW DoD Source Selection Procedures, and the evaluation criteria established in the evaluation factors for award provision.

NOTES:

It is the Government’s intention to re-establish the competitive range upon conclusion of Gate 2 evaluations. All offerors that do not meet the applicable exit criteria for Gates 1 and 2 will be eliminated from the competitive range, and no further proposal revisions or submittals will be accepted for evaluation in accordance with FAR 15.306(c)(3), FAR 15.306(d)(5) and FAR 15.307(a). However, this does not preclude the Government’s right to re-establish/re-determine the competitive range at any time during the source selection in accordance with FAR 15.306(c)(3) and FAR 15.306(d)(5).

The Government reserves the right to reopen the Gating process at any stage to ensure a reasonable pool of offerors is presented to the SSA for an award decision. Upon the conclusion of any gate’s evaluations, if the number of offerors identified as meeting the exit criteria for that gate is determined to not be a reasonable pool of offerors, the Government reserves the right to “reach back” to previous gates to continue discussions with offerors to potentially bring them forward. The determination of a reasonable pool of offerors is within the Government’s discretion and cannot be defined upfront due to the inherent subjective nature of the tradeoff process.

C. Volume I, Completed RFP

1. Completed RFP: Volume I, Completed RFP shall be evaluated to ensure the RFP and any amendments issued are signed, and all “fill-in” clauses and provisions are completed as required. The cover letter shall be evaluated to determine the number, types, and accompanying rationale of exceptions taken to the RFP terms and conditions. The Government reserves the right to determine any exceptions taken to the RFP terms and conditions as being non-compliant with the stated solicitation requirements, and thus render the proposal ineligible for award.

2. Cross-Reference Matrix: The cross-reference matrix, RFP attachment 1, will be utilized as a tool to show critical interrelationships and dependencies among the technical requirements documents Performance-Based Work Statement (PWS), the Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL), Section L (Instructions to Offerors) and Section M (Evaluation Basis for Award). The cross-reference matrix will help offerors ensure they have responded to all the evaluation criteria and proposal submittal requirements identified in the solicitation. If the matrix conflicts with any other requirement, direction, or provision of this solicitation, the other reference shall take precedence over this matrix. Section M references in the matrix are for informational purposes only, and the Government shall be obligated to evaluate proposals solely in conformance with the provisions of Section M of the solicitation. Failure by the offeror to submit this completed cross reference matrix will result in the offeror being considered as failing to meet the RFP terms and conditions.

D. Volume II, Technical Factor

1. General: Each offeror’s written technical proposal shall be evaluated, based on the subfactors below, to determine if the offeror provides a sound, compliant approach that meets the requirements of the PWS, and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements and their associated risks. The technical proposal addresses each of the following subfactors in sufficient detail. For each subfactor, the offeror identifies risks, if any, associated with the proposed approach and actions the offeror will take to mitigate the identified risks. If no risks/mitigations are identified within a subfactor in the offeror’s proposal, it indicates the offeror does not consider there to be any risk associated with their proposed approach in the subfactor. Offerors are reminded that the Government may independently identify risks with the proposed approach beyond those identified by the offerors themselves.

Subfactor One (Management Plan): This subfactor is met when the written technical proposal provides an acceptable management plan, which describes how the offeror intends to successfully manage and perform the requirements of the TDSSe³ RFP and PWS. The proposal detailed an acceptable approach to managing the following:

1. Approach to employee management (such as, internal team communication, monitoring of team member activities, ability to manage multiple orders across numerous geographic locations, how you plan to recruit, hire, train, and retain employees capable of supporting the scope of the TDSSe³ PWS).

2. Approach to managing various levels of classification up to and including, Sensitive/Top Secret/Cosmic Top Secret Compartmented Information (SCI), including subcontracting, facilities and obtaining personnel with the appropriate security clearances.

3. Approach to manage cost of labor (such as, appropriate task integration, optimization of staff, subcontracting and cross training).

4. Approach to Service Contract Act (such as, mapping determinations, wages, adjustments, fringe benefits, and subcontracting)

Subfactor Two (Capability Task), RFP Attachment 4:

This subfactor is met when the written technical proposal provides an acceptable approach to successfully perform the requirements of the given scenarios in accordance with the TDSSe³ RFP, RFP Attachment 4, and PWS. The proposal detailed an acceptable response to the following:

1. Knowledge of technical data policies, systems and resources needed to complete a process flow chart, a clear chronological narrative of activities from start to end, and describe systems, software, and government support used to accomplish each of the three scenarios.

Subfactor Three (Awardable Task), RFP Attachment 5:

This subfactor is met when the written technical proposal provides an acceptable approach to successfully perform the requirements of the Awardable Task in accordance with the TDSSe³ RFP, RFP Attachment 5, and PWS. The proposal detailed an acceptable approach for the following:

1. Implementing the requirements.

2. Managing the requirements with minimal government intervention.

3. Identifying an acceptable labor skills mix and associated hours required to effectively, efficiently and successfully accomplish the Awardable Task.

4. Implementing technical data quality assurance processes.

2. Technical Rating: The technical rating reflects the evaluation of the acceptability of the offeror’s technical approach for meeting the Government’s requirement. The offeror’s proposal shall be evaluated to determine whether the proposal is acceptable or unacceptable, using the ratings and descriptions outlined in the table below. One technical rating will be assigned to each technical subfactor. In order to be considered awardable, there must be an “acceptable” rating in every subfactor.

Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings:

Adjectival Rating Description Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

3. Technical Risk Rating: Technical risk, which is manifested by the identification of weaknesses, assesses the degree to which an offeror’s proposed approach for the requirements of the solicitation may cause disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased government oversight, and/or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. The evaluation will address the Source Selection Team’s identification of any weaknesses and/or significant weaknesses, as well as the offeror’s identified risks and proposed mitigation (if applicable) and document why that is or is not manageable. Each technical subfactor will receive one of the Technical Risk ratings described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, excerpted below.

Technical Risk Ratings:

Adjectival Rating Description Low Proposal may contain weakness/weaknesses which have low potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, degradation of performance, increased government oversight, or unsuccessful contract performance. Normal contractor emphasis and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may have a moderate potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

High Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to have high potential to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance.

Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will unlikely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a deficiency or a combination of significant weaknesses that causes an unacceptable level of risk of unsuccessful performance.

Note: The Government shall utilize the definitions as provided in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, section 5 for “strength”, “significant strength”, “weakness”, “significant weakness”, “uncertainty”, and “deficiency”. The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion on the applicability of these terms to their proposal.

E. Cost/Price Proposal Factor:

1. Cost/Price Factor: The Government will evaluate each offeror’s proposed prices submitted in Volume III, Cost/Price Proposal, for reasonableness, balance, and cost realism in accordance with paragraphs A, B, and C below. A Total Evaluated Price (TEP), which will include an aggregate calculation of FFP CLINs and a Most Probable Cost (MPC) for cost-type CLINs, will be presented to the Source Selection Authority (SSA) for consideration in making the best value determination. The TEP will be calculated in accordance with paragraph D below, and the TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only. Cost/Price will not receive an adjectival rating. The Government will evaluate each offeror’s cost/price proposal using one or more of the techniques described in FAR 15.404.

A. Reasonableness: The existence of adequate price competition is expected to support a determination of reasonableness. Price analysis techniques may be used to further validate price reasonableness. If adequate price competition is not obtained or if price reasonableness cannot be determined using price analysis of Government obtained information, additional information in accordance with FAR 15.404 may be required to support the proposed prices, such as cost analysis.

B. Balance: Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated cost/price, one or more contract line items (including all ordering and option periods) is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of cost/price analysis techniques. An overstated or understated CLIN cost/price may be due to (a) an illogical progression of rates or factors between program years, (b) unit costs/prices that do not take into account quantity variations, or (c) the “front-loading” of CLINs; either of these situations would reflect an inaccurate “true” cost/price for that CLIN. Front-loading occurs when a larger than normal amount of costs are concentrated in an early contract period. The Government may consider any “front-loaded” CLIN as unbalanced, since acceptance of the proposal would result in advance payment. The Government will analyze offers to determine whether there are unbalanced, separately priced line items or sub-line items. Proposed costs/prices will be compared and evaluated to ensure that a logical progression exists as related to price and/or quantity changes within each offeror’s response to the pricing structure in RFP Attachment 2, Cost-Price Evaluation Model. Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

C. Cost realism: The Government will perform cost realism analysis on the proposed costs and add-on factors in cost-type CLINs X002, X003, X004, X006, and X008. Cost realism is the process of independently reviewing and evaluating specific elements of each offeror’s proposed cost estimate and/or add-on factor to determine whether the estimated proposed cost elements are realistic for the work to be performed, reflect a clear understanding of the requirements, and are consistent with the unique methods of performance described in the offeror’s technical proposal. The burden of proof for cost realism rests with the offeror.

Accordingly, proposals will be evaluated to assess the likelihood that the proposed technical and managerial approach can successfully accomplish the PWS at the competitively proposed cost for cost type CLINs.

For cost-type CLINs, the result of cost realism analysis is the MPC. The MPC estimate is the Government estimate of the cost to acquire specified goods and/or services based on each offeror’s proposed approach. The MPC is based upon an analysis of each offeror’s unique proposal in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. The MPC may differ from the proposed cost and will reflect the Government’s best estimate of the cost that is most likely to result from the offeror’s proposal. MPC will be used in making a determination of best value. The overall evaluated MPC includes the likely cost to the Government for all cost CLINs (all ordering and option periods).

D. Total Evaluated Price (TEP): The TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only. It will be calculated by adding together the evaluated cost/price and MPC for the CLINs as outlined below, for all ordering and option periods. Offerors are advised that the evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options. The sum of the evaluated prices for CLINs X001, X002, X003, X004, X005, X006, X007 and X008 will represent the TEP. The evaluated prices for each of the aforementioned CLINs will be calculated as explained in the following paragraphs:

CLINs X001, X002, X007, and X008:

Step 1 per CLIN: The Government will multiply the Offeror’s proposed fully burdened labor ‘On-Base’ rate for each category by the Government-estimated On-Base labor hours (not disclosed to the Offeror) for each respective labor category, yielding the ‘On-Base’ labor dollars per labor category.

Step 2 per CLIN: The Government will add together the calculated proposed labor dollars for each ‘On-Base’ labor category to determine the total ‘On-Base’ costs.

Step 3 per CLIN: The Government will multiply the Offeror’s proposed fully burdened labor ‘Off-Base’ rate for each category times the Government-estimated labor hours (not disclosed to the Offeror) for the respective labor category, yielding the ‘Off-Base’ labor dollars for each labor category.

Step 4 per CLIN: The Government will add together the calculated proposed labor dollars for each ‘Off-Base’ labor category to determine the total ‘Off-Base’ costs.

Step 5 per CLIN: The Government will add together the proposed ‘On-base’ costs with the proposed ‘Off-Base’ costs to arrive at the evaluated price per CLIN.

CLINs X003, X004, X005, and X006:

Step 1: The Government will multiply the Offeror’s proposed add-on factor to the Government-estimated cost (not disclosed to the Offeror) per period, yielding the evaluated price per CLIN.

CLINs 900X: As noted in Section L, an evaluated priced will be calculated by multiplying the Offeror’s Option 1, Year 9 evaluated price by fifty percent (50%).

* All proposed labor rates shall be rounded to two decimal places.

* Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

Pictured below is an example excerpted from RFP Attachment 2, Cost-Price Evaluation Model. The example is provided for demonstration purposes only; it is not inclusive of all contract periods nor all performance locations. The Government estimated dollars, hours, rates, quantities, and/or prices contained within are arbitrary numbers. The example is in no way reflective of the actual/total requirements as defined in the RFP. While the CLIN structure below is included in the RFP, the actual total requirements may vary from the example below. It is provided only as a means of identifying how the various types of calculations will be performed.

Below is an example of how CLINs X001, X002, X007, and X008 will be calculated:

CLIN X001 = $49,110 + $49,100 + $49,100 + $49,100 + $49,100 + $49,100 = $294,600 (sum of all locations for FFP)

Below is an example of how CLINs X003, X004, X005, and X006 will be calculated:

Below is an example of how the TEP will be calculated for the Basic Ordering Period, Year 1:

The remaining ordering and/or option periods’ TEPs will be calculated in the same manner.