SECTION_M_Amend_01.pdf

RFP-CMS-RMADA-2014

Amendment_01

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 will make their full text available. The offeror is cautioned that the listed provision 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 address: www.arnet.gov

FAR

Reference

Title Date

52.217-5 Evaluation of Options JUL 1990

M.2 GENERAL PROCEDURES FOR AWARD OF CONTRACTS

(a) The evaluation process to be utilized in this acquisition will be the “Tradeoff Process” with the predominant consideration being award of a contract to the responsible offeror whose offer provides the “Best Value” to the Government (i.e., is most advantageous to the Government; technical, cost/price and other factors listed below considered) in accordance with FAR Part 15.101-1. The “Tradeoff Process” could involve award to other than the lowest priced offeror or to other than the highest technically rated offeror.

It permits tradeoffs among cost/price and non-cost/price evaluation factors. In making this comparison the Government is more concerned with obtaining superior technical/management features than with making an award at the lowest overall cost to the Government. All technical evaluation factors, when combined, are significantly more important than cost. However, the Government will not make an award at a significantly higher overall cost to the Government to achieve slightly superior technical or management features.

(b) The evaluation of the written technical proposal will be performed in accordance with the methodology and the technical evaluation criteria set forth in this Section M to determine the offeror’s ability to complete all technical requirements for conducting the proposed effort.

(c) The business proposal of the sample task order (FIRHC) will be analyzed and evaluated using cost analysis and cost realism analysis. This will help in the determination of the reasonableness and the realism of the proposed cost/price and to assess any degree of performance risk in the business proposal. The purpose of this cost realism analysis will be to determine if the offeror’s proposed cost/price reflects the offeror’s understanding of the Government’s requirements is realistic and if the proposed cost/price is consistent with the various elements of the offeror’s technical proposal.

(d) Selection will be made in accordance with the guidelines of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15.3, Source Selection. Selection will be made to that responsible http://www.arnet.gov/ offeror(s) whose offer, conforming to the solicitation, will be most advantageous to the Government based on technical merit, evaluated cost/price and other factors specified in this solicitation.

(e) The methodology to be followed in the evaluation of the written technical proposal will be the application of the technical criteria set forth in Section M below. The evaluation will produce an adjectival rating for each offeror based upon the information contained in the proposals. Therefore, the written technical proposal shall provide all information necessary to properly evaluate the proposal in accordance with the evaluation criteria.

An offeror should not assume that the Contracting Officer will independently obtain information necessary to evaluate its proposal and should therefore supply all information required to evaluate its proposal. Failure to provide the information required to evaluate a proposal may result in rejection of the proposal as being technically unacceptable, a finding that the proposal is excluded from the competitive range, or otherwise being downgraded.

(f) The Offeror will be evaluated on the past performance of directly related or similar Federal, State and local government, and private contracts and subcontracts which are of similar scope, magnitude and complexity to that which is detailed in the RFP. (The information must be clear whether the work by the offeror was done as a prime contractor or a subcontractor). Offerors who describe similar contracts and subcontracts shall provide a detailed explanation demonstrating the similarity of the contracts to the requirements of the RFP. In accordance with FAR 9.104-1, General standards, the Offeror must have a satisfactory performance record in order to be considered for award.

See also FAR 9.104-3(b), Satisfactory Performance Record, and FAR 42.15, Contractor Performance Information.

M.3 TECHNICAL EVALUATION

Evaluation Criteria The following evaluation criteria listed below, with relative ratings (see rating definitions) assigned to each criterion as indicated, will be applied to the technical evaluation of each proposal.

Rating Definitions:

Written Technical Proposal

STANDARD

MEANING

Exceptional

• Award to Offeror should result in superior attainment of one or more requirements or objectives and attainment of all major requirements and objectives;

• Offeror has one or more significant strengths, but no significant weaknesses or deficiencies; and

• Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Acceptable

• Award to Offeror should result in attainment of all major requirements and objectives;

• Offeror has one or more significant strengths and/or strengths, but no significant weaknesses or deficiencies; and

• Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Marginal

• Award to Offeror should result in attainment of all major requirements and objectives;

• Offeror may have significant strengths, strengths, and weaknesses, and does have one or more significant weaknesses but does not have any deficiencies; and

• Risk of unsuccessful performance is moderate.

Unacceptable

• Award to Offeror should result in the unlikely attainment of one or more major requirements or objectives;

• Offeror may have significant strengths, strengths, weaknesses, and/or significant weaknesses but also has one or more deficiencies (note, a “deficiency” may result from a combination of significant weaknesses);

and

• Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

The following factors are listed in descending order of importance:

The Government anticipates evaluation of the IDIQ, Project Management Plan, and Sample Task Order proposals will be used to make a determination for the umbrella awards.

FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL APPROACH

The offeror shall make a clear and concise presentation of the technical approaches to accomplish each area of concentration outlined in the Statement of Work. The proposal shall reflect a substantive understanding of the scope, complexity and requirements associated with the project described in the Statement of Work. In addition, the offeror shall provide sufficient detail to indicate a technical understanding of, and capability for, performing all the aspect of the SOW.

The IDIQ, Project Management Plan, and Sample Task Order will be evaluated using this factor and will be weighted equally within this factor.

FACTOR 2: KEY PERSONNEL

The offeror must demonstrate what resources (including subcontractors, consultants, teaming arrangements) will be available to perform the potential range of RMADA task orders.

The offeror must identify the overall Project Director and Key personnel with related experience in which it is proposing to accomplish the potential range of RMADA task orders. Each Key Personnel proposed by the offeror shall indicate whether the person is:

• Currently employed by the offeror;

• A planned hire;

• Subcontractor; or

• Any other arrangement.

For persons who would be under “other arrangement” or “a planned hire” the offeror must provide documentation detailing the type of commitment (such as promissory letter) for each person.

The offeror shall describe a management structure that provides a clear chain of responsibility, quality assurance monitoring, cost control, contract administration, and adequate, qualified staff resources. Of importance in evaluating project management will be the offeror’s plan to ensure that:

• Key personnel assigned to awarded task orders are not over-extended to multiple task orders;

• Key personnel provide the proposed commitment for successful and timely performance of each awarded task order; and

• The offeror’s process for advising the Government of any problems in regard to the commitment of assigned key personnel and its proposed corrective action.

The IDIQ, Project Management Plan, and Sample Task Order will be evaluated using this factor and will be weighted equally within this factor.

FACTOR 3: MANAGEMENT

The response shall demonstrate the offeror’s ability to manage all aspects of the proposed efforts including technical performance, time and delivery constraints, cost, status reporting, and subcontractor(s). Ability to identify, address, resolve and communicate problems (including conflict of interest), and to maintain a positive working relationship with CMS staff are important. The contractor (including subcontractors) has appropriate and sufficient procedures and facilities to protect proprietary and confidential data and analysis related to this SOW.

The IDIQ and Project Management Plan will be evaluated using this factor and will be weighted equally within this factor.

FACTOR 4: PAST PERFORMANCE

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s past performance in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2). Past performance information may take into account predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement. 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 be evaluated as neutral. However, it should be assumed that in the overall evaluation of proposals, inclusive of all the non-priced factors, absence of past performance information would be a less favorable condition.

The IDIQ and Project Management Plan will be evaluated using this factor and will be weighted equally within this factor.

M.4 BUSINESS PROPOSAL

CMS will evaluate the Business Proposal to assess CMS' level of confidence in the offeror's ability to deliver efficient, risk free performance at a fair and reasonable cost. In that regard, the evaluation will focus on the offeror’s indirect rate history, accounting system adequacy, within budget history, and projected future direct labor rate and indirect cost rate stability and competitiveness.

CMS will use the following ratings to evaluate the Business Proposal and determine the associated risk to the Government:

GREEN CMS believes the Business Proposal represents low risk. E.g., the accounting system for the prime contractor, as well as subcontractors, is adequate for cost plus fixed fee (CPFF) contracts, future indirect costs appear to be predictable, and proposed pricing for labor appears reasonable.

YELLOW CMS believes there is some risk in the Business Proposal. E.g., the accounting system for the prime contractor, or subcontractors, may not be adequate for CPFF contracts; future indirect costs may not appear to be predictable, and the proposed pricing for the labor may not appear to be reasonable.

RED CMS believes there is substantial risk in the Business Proposal. E.g., the accounting system for the prime contractor, or subcontractors, is not adequate for CPFF contracts, future indirect costs do not appear to be predictable, and the proposed pricing for the labor does not appear to be reasonable.