1_Section_M.doc

RTAS RFP 08002

Table of Contents

Section M: Evaluation Factors for Award Section

Page 1M.1 General Evaluation and Award Considerations

1M.1.1 Award Basis

1M.1.1.1 Factor Rating Scale and Award Determination

2M.1.1.2 Eligibility for Award

2M.1.2 Source Selection Process

2M.1.2.1 Proposal Evaluation

3M.1.2.2 Final Revised Proposal Evaluation

3M.1.3 Solicitation Amendments

3M.1.4 Unreleastic propsals

4M.2 Technical Evaluation

4M.2.1 Past Performance

M.2.2 Technical Approach M.2.3 Management Approach

6M.3 Price Evaluation

6M.3.1 Total Evaluated Discounted Cost

7M.4 Optional Service Acceptance

List of Tables

Table

Page 1Table M.1-1. Factor Rating Scale

M.1 General Evaluation and Award Considerations

M.1.1 Award Basis

The Government desires to make multiple awards for RTAS services. Contract(s) will be awarded to offeror(s) whose proposals are most advantageous to the Government. The actual number of contracts awarded will be determined by the Government and based on technical acceptability and price evaluation of mandatory RTAS services. The following Technical and Price factors will be considered.

1. Technical Factors

a) Past Performance (described in Section M.2.1).

b) Technical Approach (described in Section M.2.2).

c) Management Approach (described in Section M.2.3).

2. Price Factors

a) Total Evaluated Discounted Cost (TEDC) (described in Section M.3.1).

The relative significance or weights of the evaluation factors is as follows. For the Technical Factors, Past Performance and Technical Approach will be approximately equal in weight and each will be greater in weight than the Management factor. The combined weights of the Technical factors will be approximately equal to the Price factor.

Optional services that are offered will be evaluated for award but will not impact the source selection decision as described in Section M.4.

M.1.1.1 Factor Rating Scale and Award Determination

Proposals will receive adjectival factor ratings. The rating scale is described in Table M.1-1. In comparing proposals with different factor ratings and different total discounted costs, the Source Selection Authority (SSA) will make informed, fair, and reasoned business decisions, but will not attempt to achieve mathematical precision. In the award decision, the SSA will select those proposals that offer the best overall value to the Government.

The award decision(s) may result in an award to other than the offeror with the lowest price or the highest technical and management factor ratings. In deciding which offer(s) to select, the Government will be adverse to risk.

Table M.1-1. Factor Rating Scale

M.1.1.2 Eligibility for Award

Proposals shall be prepared in accordance with the instructions set out in Section L. For an offer to be eligible for award, the offeror must agree to all terms and conditions of the solicitation, must be determined responsible, and must not receive a rating of Not Acceptable for any evaluation factor.

The determination of offeror responsibility will be made by the Contracting Officer and will be assessed on a pass/fail basis. The Government will make determinations of responsibility in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 9.1, Responsible Prospective Contractors, using information provided in the Business Proposal volume and information available from other sources. The Government also reserves the right to determine the responsibility of prospective major subcontractors.

M.1.2 Source Selection Process

The source selection will proceed in two sequential phases:

1. Initial Proposal Evaluation

2. Final Revised Proposal Evaluation

Offerors are advised that the Government intends to award contracts after an initial competitive range determination, a single round of discussions with offerors and an evaluation of final revised proposals. However, the Government reserves the right to make awards on initial proposal submissions without discussions. The Government also reserves the right to make more than one competitive range determination and to conduct more than one round of discussions/negotiations during either the Initial or Final Proposal Evaluation phases.

M.1.2.1 Proposal Evaluation

Proposal evaluation will proceed as follows:

1. Conformance Appraisal. Offeror submissions will be reviewed to verify acceptability of capabilities demonstration and compliance with subcontracting requirements. Failure to satisfy these criteria may result in the offeror’s proposal not receiving further consideration.

2. Compliance Appraisal. Proposals will be reviewed to verify compliance with the requirements of the solicitation. Offerors may be given the opportunity to remedy irregularities or apparent mistakes in their proposals. Failure to comply with the RFP requirements may result in the offeror’s proposal not receiving further consideration.

3. Initial Evaluation. Technical and Price proposals will be reviewed and evaluated. Technical and price proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the factors and criteria set out in Section M. Deficiencies will be identified and communicated to the offeror. Areas lacking sufficient detail or found to be ambiguous will be clarified. Preliminary strengths and weaknesses will be identified.

4. Competitive Range Determination. Based on the ratings of each proposal against all evaluation criteria, the contracting officer will establish a competitive range comprised of the most highly rated proposals. Less competitive offerors will be eliminated from further consideration.

5. Determination of Optional Service Acceptability. Optional services proposed by offerors will be reviewed for acceptability based on the procedure and criteria set out in Section M.4.

6. Discussions. The Contracting Officer will conduct written and/or oral discussions with each offeror within the competitive range. The primary objective of these discussions is to maximize the Government’s ability to obtain best value based on the requirements and the evaluation factors set forth in this RFP.

7. Call for Technical Proposal Revisions. Following discussions, offerors may be given the opportunity to submit proposal revisions (change pages). If the CO calls for Final Proposal Revisions, all offerors in the competitive range will be given the opportunity to submit final proposal revisions (FPRs) and the process will proceed with the Final Revised Proposal Evaluation as described below.

M.1.2.2 Final Revised Proposal Evaluation

The Final Revised Proposal evaluation will proceed as follows:

1. Final Technical Evaluation. Final Technical Proposals received as a result of discussions will be evaluated in accordance with the factors and criteria set out in Section M.1.1. Final strengths and weaknesses will be identified and final factor ratings will be assigned for mandatory services.

2. Call for Final Revised Price Proposals. Following completion of the Final Technical Evaluation, the Government will request that all offerors with proposals within the competitive range submit Final Revised Price Proposals.

3. Final Price Evaluation. Final Revised Price Proposals will be evaluated in accordance with Section M.1.1.

M.1.3 Solicitation Amendments

The Government reserves the right to amend the terms and conditions of the RFP at any time prior to the conclusion of discussions. If the Government does amend the RFP, the Government will so advise all offerors, and will notify interested parties in accordance with statute and regulation.

M.1.4 Unrealistic Proposals

Offerors are placed on notice that proposals that are unrealistic in terms of technical and management commitment or unrealistically low in price will be deemed reflective of an inherent lack of management and technical competence or indicative of failure to comprehend the complexity and risk of the contract requirements. This may be grounds for rejection of the proposal.

M.2 Technical Evaluation

The offeror’s approach to mandatory services will be evaluated with respect to three Technical factors: Past Performance, Technical Approach, and Management Approach. These factors and their associated subfactors and elements are summarized in Section L. During the evaluation of offeror proposals, strengths and weaknesses will be identified and documented at the element and subfactor levels. Subfactors and elements, however, will not be individually rated. Ratings will be assigned at the factor level and will be based on the scale set out in Table M.1-1. A composite rating for the Technical Evaluation – a roll-up of ratings from the three Technical factors – will also be assigned.

M.2.1 Past Performance

The offeror and its major subcontractors will be evaluated with respect to their past performance and experience. This assessment will reflect the consideration of all relevant information that is readily available to the Government, including both the information received from the offeror and information obtained from other sources. The Past Performance factor comprises the following subfactors and elements. These subfactors are of equal importance as are their respective elements.

1. Technical

a) Relevant Experience. Degree to which the offeror and major subcontractors demonstrate relevant corporate experience providing telecommunications services and associated support systems required under Section C, Descriptions/Specifications/Work Statement.

b) Customer Satisfaction. Level of customer satisfaction with telecommunications services, support systems, and key personnel delivered on Government and commercial contracts.

2. Price

a) Competitive Pricing. History of maintaining competitive pricing for products and services.

b) Cost Control. History of meeting proposed cost estimates.

3. Contractual

a. Termination History. Termination history on Government and commercial contracts.

b. Contract Compliance. History of fulfilling all technical and non-technical contractual terms and conditions.

4. Transition

a) Relevant Experience. Degree to which the offeror and major subcontractors demonstrate experience performing transitions of major telecommunications services and associated support systems required.

b) Customer Satisfaction. Level of customer satisfaction with telecommunications services, support systems, and key personnel delivered on Government and commercial contracts.

M.2.2.

Technical Approach

The Technical Approach factor comprises the following subfactors and elements. Subfactors are listed in order of decreasing importance. Elements within each subfactor are equally important.

1. Operational Capabilities

a) Capabilities Demonstration. Degree to which the contractor demonstrates network capability capable of supporting volume and bandwidth required to support existing services.

b) Contractor Performance Information. Degree to which the contractor performance demonstrates an history of providing technical services.

2. Network Architecture and Services

a) Understanding. Degree to which the offeror demonstrates an understanding of RTAS service requirements and proposes an architecture compliant with overall RFP requirements.

b) Quality of Services. Degree to which the offeror proposes a sound approach and demonstrates the capability to deliver high quality, secure, and reliable RTAS services.

c) Flexibility. Degree to which the offeror’s proposed architecture has the flexibility to accommodate growth, evolution in service requirements, advances in technology, and changes in the regulatory environment.

d) Service Coverage. Degree to which the offeror proposes broad service coverage within the RTAS service area and identified communities.

3. Technical Support Services

a) Proposed Technical Support. Degree to which the offeror proposes technical support services beneficial to the Government.

M.2.3 Management Approach

The Management Approach factor comprises the following subfactors and elements. Subfactors are listed in order of decreasing importance. Elements within each subfactor are equally important.

1. Support Systems

a) Quality of Systems. Degree to which the offeror proposes a sound approach and demonstrates the capability to provide compliant support systems including: service ordering, operational support, billing, trouble handling, training, and customer service.

b) Customer Access. Degree to which the offeror provides access to support system

c) Utility. Degree to which the offeror’s proposed support systems are efficient, user-friendly, and minimize customer workload

d) Integration. Degree to which the offeror’s proposed support systems are electronically integrated

2. Program Management

a) Teaming Arrangements. Degree to which the offeror has assembled an experienced and capable team with well defined roles and responsibilities that build on the strengths of the team members.

b) Key Personnel. Degree to which the qualifications and experience of the proposed program manager and other key personnel are appropriate and will lead to success of the RTAS program.

c) Business Development. Degree to which the offeror proposes a sound approach and demonstrates the capability to effectively develop and manage business relationships with both new and existing customers

d) Program Management Organization. Degree to which the program manager’s reporting chain within the organizational structure ensures appropriate access to upper management and corporate resources

3. Transition

a) Transition Approach. Degree to which the offeror proposes a sound approach and demonstrates the capability to transition existing MAA services to RTAS with a minimal disruption or degradation of service

4. Subcontracting Plan

a) Compliance. Degree to which the offeror’s subcontracting plan complies with the requirements of 15 U.S.C. 637 d(8) and Subpart 19.7 of the FAR. A subcontracting plan, approved by SBA, is a condition of award.

b) Participation. Degree to which the offeror proposes a sound approach and demonstrates a commitment to meet the Government’s goals for participation of small business, veteran-owned small business, service-disabled veteran-owned small business, HUBZone small business, small disadvantaged business, and women-owned small business concerns.

M.3 Price Evaluation

Evaluation of the offeror’s pricing of mandatory services.

Offerors are advised that any service or item delivered under this contract for which the offeror does not specifically identify a price shall be considered to be included in the price of another item or provided at no cost to the Government as part of the basic service unless otherwise provided in this contract.

M.3.1 Total Evaluated Discounted Cost

The Total Evaluated Discounted Cost for an offer represents the present value over the entire contract period (including option years) of all costs to the Government for voice and/or data services, including the cost of basic service, features, mandated taxes, surcharges, and fees, and any other costs related to the service requirements. The total evaluated price will not include the cost of optional or additional services proposed by the offeror.

For purposes of evaluation, service, feature, taxes, surcharges, fees, and other costs will be computed using the prices proposed by the offeror in the Section B price tables, total inclusive prices, multiplied by the quantities of services currently in service through the MAA contract. In cases where offerors propose service footprints less than the entire RTAS service area, only the traffic associated with the proposed footprint will be used to compute the evaluated price. In comparing offerors with different service footprints, the Government will compare pricing for intersecting areas of the footprints . Other analyses may also be completed in such cases in order to ensure equitable and valid comparisons among offerors.

Proposed prices will be compared with the following benchmarks where available:

1. Prices of other offerors in the competitive range.

2. Current MAA prices.

3. Other similar Government and commercial contract prices.

4. Independent Government cost estimate(s).

5. Prices set by law and regulation.

To ensure fair, reasonable, balanced, and realistic prices, the Government may perform additional price and/or cost analysis in accordance with FAR Part 15.404 for the offered requirements. Offerors are advised that all prices for mandatory and optional services and features, technical support, and other priced items may be subject to price and/or cost analysis. Prices that are determined to be unrealistic, unbalanced, or not fair and reasonable, will not be accepted by the Government.

The Government will also examine offers for unbalanced pricing. The Government may reject any offer that is materially unbalanced, according to the FAR 15.404-1(g) definition of materially unbalanced.

M.4 Optional Service Acceptance

During the Initial Evaluation process, the Government will determine the acceptability of individual optional services proposed by an offeror. Optional services acceptance will be a separate decision that will not affect the Government’s contract award decision(s). For a service to be acceptable, the offeror must demonstrate the following:

1. Compliance. Compliance with Section C, Technical, and Section B, Price, requirements.

2. Pricing. Fair, reasonable, realistic, and balanced pricing.

3. Past Performance. Relevant experience and customer satisfaction.

As a result of this review, an optional service will be rated as Acceptable or Non-Acceptable. If an offeror ultimately receives a contract award, all acceptable optional services proposed by that offer will be included in the award. After contract award, any optional service not awarded to a successful offeror will remain in scope but will not be considered for modification to an awarded contract for 12 months after contract award. After the 12 month period expires, and when in the Government’s best interests, the Government will consider new proposals by the contractor to incorporate any non-awarded optional service into its contract by contract modification.

� Intersecting areas of service footprints are those areas of service coverage, measured based on NPA-NXX, that are common to two or more offerors.

M-5