Section M AMD02_TrackedChanges.docx

SECTION M. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M1.0. SOURCE SELECTION

M1.1. General.

M1.1.1. Solicitation Requirements, Terms, and Conditions.

Offerors are required to address all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical/management 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.

M1.1.2. Basis for Contract Award.

This is a best value trade off source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and the DISA Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DARS). These regulations are available electronically at http://www.ditco.disa.mil/hq/aqinfo.asp and https://www.acquisition.gov/. The Government will select the best overall offeror, based on integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below.

A contract may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible IAW the FAR, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, administrative requirements, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors, to represent the best value to the Government. The Source Selection Authority will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation (described below).

M1.1.3. Evaluation.

The technical proposal shall include all information the offeror wants the Government to consider and evaluate regarding its company’s ability to perform all required tasks and conform to all required terms and conditions. The best value trade off determination will be based on the stated evaluation factors.

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions or seek clarifications if the Contracting Officer (KO) determines they are necessary. In the event issues pertaining to a proposed contract cannot be resolved to the KO’s satisfaction, the Government reserves the right to withdraw and cancel the solicitation. In such event, offerors will be notified in writing. In the event a competitive range is established and the KO 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 KO may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition.

M1.1.4. Evaluation of Options.

The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the base period. The offeror shall submit pricing for the base period and all option periods, including option pricing for an additional 6-month period that may be authorized IAW FAR 52.217-8. The pricing proposal should include a separate line item for the additional 6-month period IAW FAR 52.217-8. These prices shall be identical to the proposed pricing in the 6 months prior to expiration of the base period, or the final option period, if option periods are present. The total evaluated price will consist of the contractor’s proposed price for the Sustainment base period, Modernization base period, all option periods, and the option pricing for the additional 6-month period. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

M1.1.5. Number of Contracts to be Awarded.

The Government intends to award one Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity, Firm-Fixed-Price, single award type contract for the Military Sealift Command (MSC) Next Generation Wideband (NGW) Follow-On (FO); however, the Government reserves the right to make no award at all. The Government will not consider a multiple award contract resulting from this solicitation.

M2.0. EVALUATION FACTORS

Factor 1: Technical/Management Factor 2: Cost/Price

M2.1. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors.

a. Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal is determined to represent the overall best value to the Government using a best value tradeoff evaluation process. With regard to the best value analysis for the award decision, the evaluation factors and sub factors identified in paragraphs below will be used in the trade off analysis. The technical portion of the proposal shall include information regarding the offeror’s ability to conform to all required terms and conditions in the solicitation. In order to be eligible for award, the contractor’s proposal must sufficiently address all aspects of the PWS. With regard to the best value analysis for the award decision, the evaluation factors and sub factors identified below will be used in the trade off analysis.

b. The standards for evaluating the below factors are contained in the attached Evaluation Table (Attachment 11). Proposals that are rated “Red/Unacceptable” in any area at time of contract award are ineligible for award and shall be excluded from further consideration.

c. In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), all evaluation factors other than cost/price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price. The Technical/Management portion of the proposal must be limited to 50 pages. The following Technical/Management Approach Subfactors (1-4) are of equal importance. Subfactors (1-4) will be considered in the award decision. Subfactors (1-4) will be assigned a combined Technical/Risk rating in accordance with Table 1 of Attachment 11. Subfactor ratings will not be rolled up into an overall rating for the Technical/Management Approach Factor.

M2.2. Technical/Management Factor.

The technical/management evaluation provides for two distinct but related assessments: the technical/management rating and the technical/management risk rating. Each technical/management subfactor will receive one of the color ratings described in the Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures, paragraph 3.1.2.2. The Technical/Management factor evaluation will be based on the proposed Technical/Management volume.

The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings. Combined technical/risk evaluations shall utilize the combined technical/risk ratings.

Factor 1: Technical/Management Approach

1. Subfactor 1: Global Network Infrastructure, Reference PWS Paragraph 6.1.4 The offeror’s solution will be evaluated based on how well it addresses the offeror’s ability to create and deliver a complete, efficient, resilient and adequate plan that meets or exceeds the Subfactor 1 requirements. The requirements of this subfactor include providing a Global Network Infrastructure plan that includes consideration for the following:

1. Commercial teleport access

2. Terrestrial reach back

3. Commercial teleport architectures

4. Redundancy characteristics

5. Path diversity 6.Network sizing requirements

2. Subfactor 2: Modernization, Reference PWS paragraph 6.2.2 The offeror’s solution will be evaluated based on how well it addresses the offerors comprehensive and efficient ability to modernize. The Offerors proposal will be evaluated based on how well it describes the offeror’s comprehensive ability to demonstrate a sound, and complete modernized solution that meets or exceeds the Government’s requirements of sub elements (a) and (b) below.

Small Business Participation. Offerors that demonstrate the utilization of small businesses in the execution of the resultant contract and in relation to this element may be given a strength under this factor. Offerors who provide small business utilization commitments under this factor must provide documentation sufficient to demonstrate the commitment to small business(es). To receive the strength, at a minimum, the offeror shall provide contracts/letters of commitments/partnership agreements, signed by the offeror and small business, that documents the work to be executed by the small business(es). (Any partnering agreement/documentation to support this factor will not be held to the page limitations of this evaluation factor.). Awardee will be held to this commitment and will be penalized by negative performance ratings and/or financial penalties if these commitments are not executed during contract performance.

a) Based on the physical limitations outlined under PWS 6.2.2.1, offerors shall propose a modernized equipment set to enhance the service capabilities of the existing MSC sustainment requirements with optimized levels of service relative to terminal size, with minimized mean time between failure (MTBF) and demonstrated commercially agnostic compatibilities. Offerors may propose up to three antenna options. For each option, the offeror shall provide an overview of each weight class’ antenna’s maximum performance capabilities, such as EIRP, G/T, and diameter, the antenna and modem’s compatibility with other services, and reliability/MTBF figures associated with the equipment. The vendors shall add characteristics of each proposed modernized equipment set into PWS Appendix A, Technical Specification’s Modernization Terminal Info tab.

b) Based on the performance requirements for sustainment and proposed service capabilities for sustainment, the vendor shall propose a modernized network compatible with the equipment solution recommended for sub element 2(a). The offeror shall describe to what extent the modernized network and proposed equipment accommodate the modernized services and can enhance MSC capabilities with efficiencies gained. Offerors shall describe and provide evidence of network characteristics.

3. Subfactor 3: Program Project Management & Operations, Reference PWS paragraph 6.3.1 and 6.5.2 Global Infrastructure Operations, (other PWS Sections; 6.1.2, 6.2.1, and 6.1.4.2.1) Offerors shall submit a Project Management Plan as part of their proposal. The Project Management Plan will be evaluated based on how well it describes a comprehensive management approach that explains how the offeror will manage global infrastructure operations as described in PWS 6.1.2, 6.2.1, and 6.1.4.2.1. The Project management plan shall clearly outline an overview of infrastructure sizing and ability to scale based on customer demand, NOC engineering, network services, expertise in iDirect, Asset Management, Logistics Support, Risk Management Processes. and Transition Plans. The Project Management Plan portion of the proposal shall be limited to 20 pages and is outside of the technical proposal page limitation. The Project Management Plan of the successful offeror's proposal may be incorporated into the task order as an attachment.

4. Subfactor 4: Information Assurance (IA), Reference PWS paragraph 6.9 and 6.5.2

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror demonstrates its ability to provide cybersecurity services, including the ability to respond to vulnerabilities and incidents in accordance with the RMF, by evaluating the holistic nature of the risk factors, incidents, and mitigation techniques. Additionally, the Government will assess whether the offeror demonstrates sound processes and policies which allow the offeror to respond quickly to changing requirements, minimize the operational impact of outages, address current and emerging cyber security threats, and provide near real time situational awareness with the least amount of risk IAW DoD 8510 certification requirements. The Government will assess the Risk Management Plan (limited to 10 pages, outside of the technical proposal page limitation) and the COMSATCOM Information Assurance Questionnaire (CIAQ) submitted on Section J Attachment -12.

M2.4. Price Factor

(1) The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated, for award purposes, based on the Attachment 1 – Section B Pricing Worksheet. The Government will calculate the total evaluated price for the Section B Pricing Worksheet by multiplying the duration and the proposed monthly recurring cost (MRC), add the proposed non-recurring cost (NRC), and then multiply by the Government undisclosed estimated quantities for each CLIN for the Sustainment base period, Modernization base period, and all option periods. The option pricing for the additional 6-month period will be calculated as half of the total for option period 4. The estimated quantities used for evaluation purposes will not be provided to the offerors until after award. The undisclosed Government estimated quantities in the Schedule B Pricing Worksheet are for evaluation purposes only, and are based on historical data and a reasonable expectation of the quantities needed for execution of the contract. Under no circumstance is the Government bound to ordering these estimated quantities.

(2) All CLINs will be evaluated as part of the price evaluation for completeness and reasonableness.

(3) Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

(4) The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated, using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404, in order to determine if it is reasonable, balanced, and complete. Normally, price reasonableness is established through cost and price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404. The Government will determine completeness of the offeror’s price proposal by verifying that all solicitation requirements have been priced, figures are correctly calculated, and costs are presented in a clear and useful format. The offeror shall complete the Government-provided pricing schedule in Section J, Attachment 1 - Section B Pricing Worksheet of the RFP, as instructed in Section L.

(5) Unbalanced Pricing. Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and could result in payment of unreasonably high prices. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable proposal, the price of one or more items is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. The Government will analyze offers to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to separately priced items.