Att_31_-_Evaluation_factors...0001.docx

DOS Request for Proposals No. SAQMMA17R0168, Attachment 31 – Amendment 0001

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

In addition to all provisions elsewhere in RFP Section M – Evaluation factors for award, the Government will evaluate proposals in accordance with the information herein.

In order to ensure maximum efficiency and transparency throughout the solicitation and evaluation process, to limit undue financial risk associated with Bid and Proposal cost expenditures by Offerors who may be unlikely to rank highly in evaluation, and to ultimately obtain the best proposal for the Government upon contract award, the source selection for the GSE&SC Contract will involve a multi-phased evaluation, with each phase resulting in a competitive range determination. Within each phase, the contracting officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range pursuant to paragraph (f) of RFP provision 52.215-1, Alt I.

The significant factors and subfactors that will be considered in awarding the contract are as follows:

FACTOR 1: Performance Confidence Assessment (Past Performance) FACTOR 2: Technical Proposal SUBFACTOR 2a: Soundness SUBFACTOR 2b: Feasibility SUBFACTOR 2c: Practicality FACTOR 3: Cost/Price

Factor 1 and Factor 2 (i.e. the non-cost/price factors) are equally important, and all subfactors within Factor 2 are equally important within that factor. The non-cost/price factors, when combined, are significantly more important than cost/price.

I. Phase I – Performance Confidence Assessment

This factor evaluates the Offeror’s relevant past performance history to generate a Performance Confidence Rating of the Offeror’s ability to successfully perform the requirements of this contract.

There are two aspects to the assessment of performance confidence:

The first aspect is to evaluate how relevant recent efforts accomplished by the Offeror are to the effort required by this solicitation. In making this determination, the Government reserves the right to use both data provided by the Offeror and data obtained from other sources. In determining relevance, consideration will be given to projects substantially similar to this solicitation in scope, magnitude, and complexity as detailed below:

· Scope – each referenced effort will be compared to the requirements of this effort for providing the full range of global security engineering and supply chain services described in the PWS.

· Magnitude – the cost/price per year of each referenced effort will be compared to the estimated cost/price per year for this effort.

· Complexity – each referenced effort will be compared to the requirements of this effort for overall complexity including: management of sources, subcontractors, and supply chain risk; global transportation and logistics; support for urgent or contingency operations; and security engineering and technology services.

The Government will consider efforts performed for agencies of the federal, state, or local governments and commercial customers. The evaluation will also include review of efforts performed by other divisions, subcontractors, or teaming contractors, if such resources are proposed. For subcontractors/teaming partners, the relevancy determination will focus on the present and past work history as it relates to the specific role and scope of work the subcontractor/teaming partner is proposed to perform for this effort. For the prime contractor, the relevancy determination will include comparison to the entire scope of effort for this solicitation regardless of whether the prime or a subcontractor is proposed to do the work.

The definitions of relevancy are as follows:

Somewhat Relevant

Present/past performance effort involves some but not all of the scope, magnitude of effort and complexities of this solicitation.

The second aspect of the performance confidence assessment is to determine how well the Offeror performed on previous efforts. In making this determination, the Government reserves the right to use both data provided by the Offeror and data obtained from other sources. Where the 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.

To arrive at an overall Performance Confidence Rating for each Offeror, the evaluation team will consider:

· The combination of the relevancy and performance history of each reference;

· The context of present and past efforts (i.e. previous performance as prime; contractor or subcontractor) in relation to the Offeror’s proposed role on this effort;

· The percentage of effort the prime and each subcontractor is contributing to the effort; and,

· The “whole picture” the individual references collectively provide.

Offerors that do not possess a record of relevant performance or for whom information on present and past performance is not available will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably for Past Performance. Such Offerors will receive a “Neutral” rating to signify an “Unknown Confidence” rating. A record of relevant, successful performance will be considered more advantageous to the Government than a “Neutral/Unknown Confidence” rating. Relevant, successful performance at the subcontractor level also will have a greater positive impact on the Performance Confidence Rating than a “Neutral/Unknown Confidence” rating.

Likewise, more relevant performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Rating than a less relevant effort. The less relevant a contract is determined to be, the less positive the impact of the performance associated with that contract will have on the overall Performance Confidence Rating. Offerors with a negative past performance rating will be afforded an opportunity to address alleged deficiencies if they have not already been afforded such opportunity (e.g. through the CPARS process). Failure of an Offeror to disclose its poor past performance on a relevant Government contract may adversely affect its past performance rating for this acquisition.

Each Offeror will receive one of the ratings described below:

Limited Confidence

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

Evaluation of the Past Performance Phase I Proposal will result in the establishment of the first competitive range. Only those Offerors whose documented past performance garner the highest Performance Confidence Ratings will be included in the first competitive range. (Note: The number in the competitive range may be further limited for purposes of efficiency pursuant to FAR 15.306(c)(2).) Those excluded from the first competitive range will be so notified pursuant to FAR 15.306(c)(3). Those Offerors who are excluded from the competitive range will not be considered further for award. All and only those Offerors who are included in the first competitive range will be invited to continue on to Phase II.

II. Phase II

Due Diligence Sessions

All and only those Offerors who are included in the first competitive range will be invited to attend one-on-one due diligence sessions (i.e. one Offeror meets with the Government at a time), during which the Offeror may ask the CO and DOS technical panel non-public questions about the RFP, in order to inform its subsequent submission of the Technical and Cost/Price proposals. Any information that arises which the Government believes to be necessary for any Offeror to submit a proposal will be made public via a solicitation amendment. Each Offeror in the first competitive range will then be invited to submit written Technical and Cost/Price Proposals.

The ground rules for the due diligence sessions shall be as follows:

1. One due diligence session shall be afforded per prime Offeror. Each Offeror may bring no more than ten (10) members of its team, which must include at least the Offeror’s proposed Key Personnel Program Manager, Key Personnel Logistics Manager, Key Personnel Supply Chain Manager, and Key Personnel TDB Manager.

2. The Offeror shall, upon CO request, provide a list of the personnel who will attend the due diligence session, including full name, title, company affiliation, and any other identifying information necessary for security/building access purposes.

3. Each session shall take place at a Government location in the Washington DC metropolitan area. The specific address and facility logistics shall be provided in advance.

4. The date/time for advance question submission and due diligence sessions will be set by the contracting officer. Each session will last 4 ½ hours, with two 15-minute scheduled breaks, unless sooner ended by the Offeror. There shall be no carry-over or follow-up on questions or answers after the conclusion of the session.

5. Each Offeror shall be afforded an opportunity to submit questions in writing in advance of the scheduled due diligence session. Submission of questions in advance may increase the likelihood the Government will be prepared to answer in full during the session. However, the Offeror may ask any questions it chooses during the session, in any order, whether asked in advance or not.

6. All answers will be answered orally and no written documentation will be passed at the session, nor provided afterward unless by solicitation amendment. The Offeror may not use any electronic devices to record the session. However, the Government will record the session for the record and will provide a copy of the recording to the Offeror upon the conclusion of the session.

7. Questions and answers from individual sessions will not be shared with other Offerors unless information arises that the Government believes would be necessary for any Offeror to respond to the RFP, in which case the information will be provided by solicitation amendment.

8. Due diligence sessions are not synonymous with discussions. The Government will answer questions about its requirements, its environment, and all other information that an Offeror feels will help it propose a solution. However, the Government will not suggest or assess a solution during the due diligence sessions. The Department will not answer questions such as “Do you think this is the best approach?” or “What approach is preferred?” other than to say “That’s left for you to decide and propose”.

Technical Proposal Evaluation

Following one-on-one due diligence sessions, each Offeror will then be invited to submit written Technical and Cost/Price Proposals.

The Government shall conduct an in-depth review of each Technical Proposal against the following three non-price/cost subfactors and assign evaluation ratings for each:

1. Subfactor 2a Soundness. The extent to which it is sound (i.e., demonstrates well-thought-out approaches to meeting the solicitation requirements);

2. Subfactor 2b Feasibility. The extent to which it is feasible (i.e., executable in the environment within which the DOS operates); and

3. Subfactor 2c Practicality. The extent to which it is practical (i.e., the proclaimed results are achievable).

The technical rating reflects the degree to which the proposal meets, exceeds, or does not meet the minimum performance or capability requirements through an assessment of its strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, and risks.

For each of the three subfactors, each Offeror’s Technical Proposal will receive one of the ratings described below:

Cost/Price Evaluation

For the cost/price factor, the Government will conduct a cost/price evaluation, including cost realism analysis, on the Offeror’s submitted Cost/Price Proposal. The evaluation will include examining all proposed cost/price elements, including but not limited to the proposed –

· Target Cost (less costs of Catalog and Non-Catalog Items)

· Target Cost of required Catalog items

· Target Fee Pool

· Maximum Fee Pool

· Minimum Fee Pool

· Cancellation ceiling

· Contractor's Participation for Cost Underruns

· Contractor's Participation for Cost Overruns (see 52.216-10)

For cost/price evaluation purposes, the Government will consider the total (target) evaluated price, including the 5-year base period and the 5-year Award Term, to be:

· The proposed Target Cost (less direct cost of Accepted materials); plus

· The proposed Target Cost for each Catalog item in Attachment 8 multiplied by the estimated catalog purchase quantities in RFP Attachment 32 - Projected Annual Catalog Order Quantities; plus

· A “plug” number of $100,000,000.00 per annum which shall represent the estimated direct cost of required non-catalog items; plus

· The proposed Target Fee Pool.

Price reasonableness. The Government will conduct an evaluation to determine ultimately that the final agreed-to price is fair and reasonable. In doing so, the Government will examine the completeness, accuracy, and reasonableness of each Offerors’ Cost/Price Proposal. The Government will use one or more of the proposal analysis techniques at FAR 15.404 to conduct the cost/price evaluation.

Cost realism. As required by FAR 15.404-1(d), the DOS will determine cost realism of each Offerors’ Cost/Price Proposal based on a cost analysis. The DOS will independently review and evaluate specific elements of each Offeror’s proposed cost estimate 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 and materials described in the Offeror’s technical proposal. The DOS will determine the probable cost of performance for each Offeror. The probable cost may differ from the proposed cost and should reflect the Government’s best estimate of the cost of any contract that is most likely to result from the Offeror’s proposal. The probable cost is determined by adjusting each Offeror’s proposed cost, and fee when appropriate, to reflect any additions or reductions in cost elements to realistic levels based on the results of the cost realism analysis. The DOS will use the probable cost of contract performance developed in the cost realism analysis to determine best value. The DOS will also use the results of the cost realism analysis as a factor in evaluating the offeror's understanding of contract technical requirements and the risk associated with the offeror's technical proposal.

Evaluation of the Technical and Cost/Price Proposals will result in the establishment of the second competitive range. Only those Offerors whose documented Technical Proposal demonstrates the highest capability to perform the contract successfully, and whose Cost/Price Proposal indicates a reasonable and realistic chance of award, will be included in the second competitive range.

(Note: The number in the competitive range may be further limited for purposes of efficiency pursuant to FAR 15.306(c)(2).) Those excluded from the first competitive range will be so notified pursuant to FAR 15.306(c)(3). Those Offerors who are excluded from the competitive range will not be considered further for award. All and only those Offerors who are included in the second competitive range will be invited to continue on to Phase III.

III. Phase III

Site Visit

All and only those Offerors who are included in the second competitive range will be invited to attend a site visit to the Department’s Regional Services Office located in Frankfurt, Germany, led by the Departments CO and Technical personnel. During the site visit, the Department will show and tell information relating to the requirements described in the solicitation. Offerors are urged and expected to attend the site visit to satisfy themselves regarding all general and local conditions that may affect the cost of contract performance, to the extent that the information is reasonably obtainable. Offerors who do not attend the site visit do so at their own competitive peril (with regard to the potential quality of final proposal revisions leading to award). In no event shall failure to attend the site visit constitute grounds for a claim after contract award.

The ground rules for the site visit shall be as follows:

1. One multi-day site visit shall be scheduled, for simultaneous attendance by all Offerors in the second competitive range. Each Offeror may bring no more than four (4) members of its team. The specific location(s) and facility/security logistics information shall be provided in advance.

2. The Offeror shall, upon CO request, provide a list of the personnel who will attend the site visit, including full name, title, company affiliation, and any other identifying information necessary for security/facility access purposes.

3. All Offerors shall be afforded an opportunity to ask questions orally during the sit visit. However, all questions and answers will be asked and answered among the entire group. All communications and access during the site visit shall be provided to all attending Offerors; there shall be no opportunity for one-on-one conversations or exchanges during the site visit.

4. The Offeror shall be responsible for travel planning, logistics, and all expenses associated with its representatives attending the site visit. The Government will not pay any precontract costs associated with this acquisition.

5. The date/time for the site visit will be set by the contracting officer. The site visit duration will be three days or fewer (not including travel time).

6. The Offeror may not use any electronic devices to record any part of the site visit.

7. If information arises that the Government believes would be necessary for any Offeror to respond to the RFP, the information will be provided by solicitation amendment.

8. The site visit is not synonymous with discussions. During the sit visit, the Government will present and discuss its requirements and its environment and answer relevant questions. However, the Government will not suggest or assess a proposed solution during the site visit.

Discussions with Offerors

After the conclusion of the site visit and return to the United States, each Offeror will be offered the opportunity to participate in in-person (“robust”) discussions with the Department’s CO and Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP). As part of its written Technical Proposal under Phase II, each Offeror will have already been required to respond to four (4) scenarios, reflecting salient aspects of the Department’s countermeasures supply chain operations, as discussed in the instructions above. During the robust discussions, the Offerors (in a one-on-one meeting with the CO and the TEP Members) will walk-through their response to each scenario. The TEP Members, having previously assessed the scenario responses, while evaluating the other portions of the technical proposal, will expose the Department’s concerns with the assumptions, conditions, and/or other dependencies upon which the Offeror has relied in formulating their scenario response (i.e. areas of weakness), and the Government will lead the Offeror into all areas of its Technical and Cost/Price proposals that are weak. The Offeror will then be solicited for its final proposal revision, including any revisions applicable to the technical scenarios.

The ground rules for the robust discussions shall be as follows:

1. The purpose of discussions is to lead the Offeror into all areas of weakness in its proposal with the intent of subsequently affording the Offeror the opportunity to revise its proposal.

2. One discussion session shall be afforded per prime Offeror. Each Offeror may bring no more than ten (10) members of its team, which must include at least the Offeror’s proposed Key Personnel Program Manager, Key Personnel Logistics Manager, Key Personnel Supply Chain Manager, and Key Personnel TDB Manager.

3. Each session shall take place at a Government location in the Washington DC metropolitan area. The specific address and facility logistics shall be provided in advance.

4. The date/time for the discussion session will be set by the contracting officer. Each session will last 8 hours, with one scheduled 1-hour break and two scheduled 15-minute breaks, unless sooner ended by the Offeror or unless the Government requires more time to discuss all areas of weakness in the proposal.

5. All discussions will be conducted orally and no written documentation will be passed at the session, nor provided afterward. The Offeror may not use any electronic devices to record the session. However, the Government will record the discussion session for the record and will provide a copy of the recording to the Offeror upon the conclusion of the session.

Final Proposal Revisions

Following discussions, the Offeror will be solicited for its final proposal revision, including any revisions applicable to any parts of the proposal (i.e. Phase I Past Performance, Phase II Technical Proposal including the scenario responses, and Phase II Cost/Price Proposal). The final proposal revision will be evaluated according to the same criteria and methodology described herein for the initial proposal, except that there will be no additional due diligence sessions or site visit. The Government reserves the right to conduct additional rounds of discussions at the discretion of the contracting officer.

IV. Cost-Technical Tradeoff

After receipt of Final Proposal Revisions, a trade-off analysis (see FAR 15.101-1) will be performed involving all parts of the proposals (i.e. Phase I Past Performance, Phase II Technical Proposal, and Phase II Cost/Price Proposal, as revised), from those Offerors remaining in the competition. This process permits tradeoffs among cost/price and non-cost factors and allows the Government to accept other than the lowest priced proposal. The perceived benefits of the higher priced proposal shall merit the additional cost, and the rationale for tradeoffs will be documented in the file in accordance with 15.406.

V. Use of Non-Government Support for Evaluations

Contractor support services may be used to assist the Government in performing technical or cost/price evaluations of Offerors’ proposals submitted in response to the RFP. Support contractors, if used, will be authorized access only to those portions of the proposal data and discussions that are necessary to enable them to provide advice on specialized matter or on particular problems. Support contractors may participate as technical advisors to a source selection board. However, in no event shall support contractors participate as voting members of any source selection board.

(End of attachment)