Section IV Evaluation Criteria.pdf

80NSSC22R0001 Section IV – Evaluation Criteria

1.0 52.217-5 EVALUATION OF OPTIONS (Jul 1990)

2.0 AWARD WITHOUT DISCUSSIONS

3.0 SOURCE SELECTION AND EVALUATION FACTORS (GENERAL)

4.0 52.212-2 EVALUATION -COMMERICAL ITEMS (Oct 2014)

5.0 MISSION SUITABILITY FACTOR

6.0 PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR

7.0 PRICE FACTOR

8.0 EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS FOR AVOIDING, NEUTRALIZING OR

MITIGATING ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST (OCI)

SECTION IV

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1.0 52.217-5 EVALUATION OF OPTIONS (Jul 1990) Except when it is determined in accordance with FAR 17.206(b) not to be in the Government’s best interests, the Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. Evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

(End of provision)

2.0 AWARD WITHOUT DISCUSSIONS

As provided for in FAR 52.212-1 “Instructions to Offerors—Commercial Items.” The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussion with Offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). Therefore, the Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officers later determines them to be necessary. 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 may limit number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals (see NFS 1815.306(c)(2)).

(End of provision)

3.0 SOURCE SELECTION AND EVALUATION FACTORS (GENERAL)

a) General

The proposals will be evaluated using procedures prescribed by the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and the NASA FAR Supplement (NFS).

The attention of Offeror’s is particularly directed to NFS 1815.305, “Proposal evaluation” and to NFS 1815.305-70, “Identification of unacceptable proposals.”

A best value trade-off process, as described at FAR 15.101-1, will be used in making the source selection decision.

b) Source Selection

The proposals will be evaluated by a Source Evaluation Board (SEB) appointed by the Source Selection Authority (SSA). The SEB will be supported by subject matter experts during the evaluation. The SEB is tasked with conducting a thorough and impartial evaluation of each proposal received and reporting those evaluation findings to the SSA. It is the responsibility of the SSA to make the final source selection decision

4.0 52.212-2 EVALUATION -COMMERICAL ITEMS (Oct 2014)

(a) The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible

Offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

Factor 1: Mission Suitability

Subfactor A: Management Approach Subfactor B: Technical Approach Subfactor C: Staffing Approach Subfactor D: Phase-In Plan

Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Price

As individual factors, Mission Suitability is more important than Past Performance, which is more important than Price. When combined, the non-Price factors (Mission Suitability + Past Performance) are significantly more important than Price. However, as the ratings/scores of Offerors’ proposals in the non-Price factors approach equivalency, Price will become a more important factor in the award decision.

Past Performance will be rated on an “acceptable” or “unacceptable” basis. A proposal that receives an unacceptable Past Performance rating will be ineligible for award.

(b) Options. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options, including the Option to Extend Services to the total price for the basic requirement. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

(c) A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful Offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer’s specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

(End of provision)

The Government will interpret failure to provide sufficient detail and rationale or use of ambiguous terms as a lack of understanding on the part of the Offeror.

Pages submitted in excess of the limitations specified in Section III, Provision 7.0, Proposal Preparation Instructions (General), will not be evaluated by the Government and will be returned to the Offeror.

The Government will evaluate proposals by classifying findings as significant strengths, strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, or deficiencies using the classifications set forth in Table IV-1 below:

TYPE OF FINDING DEFINITION

Significant Strength (not in FAR/NFS)

A proposal area that greatly enhances the potential for successful performance or contributes significantly toward exceeding the contract requirements in a manner that provides additional value to the Government.

Strength (not in FAR/NFS) A proposal area that enhances the potential for successful performance or contributes toward exceeding the contract requirements in a manner that provides additional value to the Government (this could be associated with a process, technical approach, materials, facilities, etc.).

Weakness A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Significant Weakness A proposal flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Deficiency A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

Table IV-1

5.0 MISSION SUITABILITY FACTOR

The Mission Suitability Factor will receive both a numerical score (maximum of 1000 points) and an adjectival rating (see Table 1 for adjective ratings). This factor is used to evaluate an Offeror’s ability to successfully perform the requirements of the PWS in a manner that satisfies established quality standards, meets established timelines and schedules, maximizes value for each dollar spent, and minimizes overall program risk. There are four subfactors which will be used to evaluate an Offeror’s overall mission suitability. These subfactors and their corresponding weights are listed below in Table IV-2:

[space left intentionally blank]

Table IV-2

The adjectival rating definitions and percentile ranges are found in NFS 1815.305(a)(3) as well as stated in Table IV-3 below. The maximum points available for a subfactor are multiplied by the SEB’s evaluated percentage for that subfactor to derive a numerical score. For example, a subfactor worth 200 points receives a percentage rating of 80% from the SEB, the numerical score for that subfactor would be 160 points.

[space left intentionally blank]

Subfactor Points

Subfactor A: Management Approach 400

Subfactor B: Technical Approach 300

Subfactor C: Staffing Approach 200

Subfactor D: Phase-In Plan 100

TOTAL 1000

Table IV-3

MS-1: MANAGEMENT APPROACH SUBFACTOR – PROGRAM MANAGEMENT:

This evaluation subfactor will be used to evaluate the Offeror’s approach for managing this effort to ensure the goals, objectives, and characteristics of success of the NSTEM contract are achieved.

1. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Management Approach, risk assessment, organizational structure and the degree to which the proposed organizational structure contributes to effective and efficient service delivery, contributes to positive end-user experience and ensures Agency and NSTEM goals and objectives are realized.

2. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach for innovation infusion and transformation of the NSTEM goals and objectives into services. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach for identifying and adopting evolving business practices, education and performance standards, STEM research and best practices.

3. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Program Manager and Key Personnel positions to ensure an understanding of requirements and the nature of the work and is

ADJECTIVAL RATING DEFINITIONS PERCENTILE

RANGE

Excellent

A comprehensive and thorough proposal of exceptional merit with one or more significant strengths. No deficiency or significant weakness exists.

91-100

Very Good

A proposal having no deficiencies, and which demonstrates over-all competence. One or more significant strengths have been found, and strengths outbalance any weaknesses that exist.

71-90

Good

A proposal having no deficiencies, and which shows a reasonably sound response. There may be strengths or weaknesses, or both. As a whole, weaknesses not off-set by strengths do not significantly detract from the Offeror’s response.

51-70

Fair A proposal having no deficiencies, and which has one or more weaknesses. Weaknesses outbalance any strengths.

31-50

Poor

A proposal that has one or more deficiencies or significant weaknesses that demonstrate a lack of overall competence or would require a major proposal revision to correct.

0-30 reflected as such on all resumes submitted for all proposed Key Personnel. The Offeror’s Program Manager and Key Personnel positions and qualifications of each critical position will be evaluated for effectiveness in executing requirements of the PWS, the degree to which the Offeror’s proposed critical position’s education, training, experience, availability and commitment will ensure contract success, and the approach and techniques for ensuring Program Manager and Key Personnel are kept abreast of STEM education innovation and technologies.

4. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach for financial management reporting across a variety of STEM integrated services, programs, and products to ensure an understanding of requirements and the nature of the work. The Government will evaluate the accounting and financial reporting processes for providing detailed reporting at the center, program and project levels including, but not limited to, projecting and tracking costs and hours to ensure that dollar and labor resources realistically support program and project schedules.

5. The Quality Assurance approach and proposed service level agreements/performance metrics will be evaluated on the approach to ensuring quality products and services and the effectiveness of the approach to provide quality, quantity, and timely services. The Government will evaluate how the Offeror will use the data to improve services, as well as, the transparency of data on each service. Specifically, the Offeror will be evaluated on their approach to continually monitoring, identifying, tracking, and correcting deficiencies, continual process improvement and the compliance with contract requirements. The Offeror's approach for adherence to NASA Strategy for STEM Engagement 2020-2023 will be evaluated; as well as the demonstrated knowledge appropriate to those tasks (e.g. licensure/certification of personnel to appropriate education standards).

Note: NASA strongly encourages small business concerns to propose participation with Minority Serving Institutions (MSIs) and Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs). Such participation will enable NASA to further the intent of the President’s E.O. 13985, Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government dated January 20, 2021. A proposal offering MSI and/or HBCU participation will be evaluated more favorably under this subfactor than a proposal not offering such participation. Also, a proposal offering higher levels of participation by MSIs and/or HBCUs will be evaluated more favorably under this subfactor than a proposal offering lower levels of such participation. Prime offerors are reminded that since this procurement is a 100% small business set aside, they need to perform at least 51% of the overall effort.

MS-2: TECHNICAL APPROACH SUBFACTOR: This evaluation subfactor will be used to evaluate the Offeror’s overall technical approach as it relates to all requirements defined in Attachment 01, PWS.

1. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s overall understanding and approach to, along with proposed techniques and procedures for executing each of the PWS elements as demonstrated by the completeness, overall efficiency, and consistency of all parts of the proposal. The Government will evaluate Offeror’s technical approach for thoroughness and effectiveness that ensures that NSTEM services, goals, objectives, and their characteristics of success are realized.

2. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s most significant technical risks and the approach managing those risks, its assessment of the risk posture and the approach to mitigating those risk factors. Proposals will be evaluated on how the Offeror assessed the probability of the risks it identified and the probability results by the Offeror (based on the Government’s provided risk likelihood and consequence definitions).

3. The technical merit of any new or innovative STEM learning research, practices, strategies, techniques, or technologies, formal continuous service improvement methodologies, and/or process improvements which are proposed will be evaluated for how those new or innovative methods will impact the completion of the functional requirements presented in Attachment 01, PWS including efficiencies and risks.

MS-3 STAFFING APPROACH SUBFACTOR

1. The Government will evaluate the following for reasonableness and effectiveness:

a. The Offeror’s staffing approach

b. The Offeror’s description of how it intends to staff this effort and how the approach will allow the Offeror to meet the requirements of this contract

c. The Offeror’s comprehensive hiring approach.

d. The Offeror’s approach to recruit and retain staff not currently employed by the company

e. The Offeror’s backup approach to its primary staffing approach

f. Percentage of qualified incumbent employees anticipated to be captured

2. In the event the Offeror proposed additional minimum essential positions, the

Government will evaluate the rationale for identifying these positions as critical and the included description for each position. The Offeror will be evaluated on the description’s inclusion of the position title, to whom the position reports, summary of duties and responsibilities, any specific requirements/certifications or licensing, and minimum education and experience required for the position. Additionally, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s written position qualifications for any additional labor categories envisioned for this requirement, addressing the minimum requirements in the position description and including the necessary experience, summary of duties and responsibilities, specific requirements/certifications or licensing, minimum education and minimum experience required for the position. The Government will ensure each position qualification does not exceed ½ page in length.

MS-4 PHASE-IN PLAN SUBFACTOR

1. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Phase-in Plan for effective and efficient service transition that ensures service continuity, minimizes service disruption, ensures timely Contractor’s personnel on-boarding processes, and mitigates risks in alignment with Management, Technical, and Staffing approaches. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s understanding and approach for continuity of services, schedules, labor and resources for ongoing Internships and Fellowships, Challenges and Competitions, and STEM Engagement activities during the 45-day transition period.

6.0 PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR

The past performance evaluation considers each Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements. Past Performance shall be evaluated in accordance with FAR

15.305. However, the comparative assessment in FAR 15.305(a)(2)(i) does not apply.

Therefore, past performance will be rated on an “acceptable” or “unacceptable” basis using the ratings in Table IV-4 below. There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy (including context of data), and quality (including general trends in contractor performance and source of information).

These aspects are combined to establish one performance confidence assessment rating for each Offeror of either “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable”. Past performance information may be obtained from established systems such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases;

and may be obtained from other sources available to the Government, such as the Defense Contract Management Agency; and interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, Fee Determining Officials.

(1) The Government will evaluate the recency and relevancy of performance of work

Three aspects are taken into consideration by the evaluation team when determining the Offeror’s past performance confidence rating. These aspects are recency, relevance, and quality. A description of each aspect is provided below.

• Recency: Only contract periods of performance within three years from the release date of the Final NSTEM Services RFP will be considered. Once established, this date will remain as the demarcation for this three-year limitation, even if the RFP is further updated or revised. The Government will not consider performance on any contract that has no documented performance history.

• Relevancy: The term "size" may include consideration of the contract's monetary value, number of employees, number of work-year equivalents, geographic area served, and other appropriate size-related aspects of a contract, in comparison to the requirements of this solicitation. The term "content" considers the contract's scope of services, work, requirements, or supplies, in comparison to the requirements of this solicitation. The term "complexity" considers items such as: similar in scope of work as it relates to performing technical integration activities, performance that required being extremely adaptable and flexible to frequently changing requirements and schedules, and work that required managing multiple customer needs with different and distinct work environments, day to day operations, schedule milestones, and competing priorities.

(2) Past Performance Adjectival Rating: This rating will be assessed as the overall factor level for Past Performance.

ADJECTIVAL

RATING DESCRIPTION

Acceptable

Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the Offeror’s performance record is unknown. (See note below)

Unacceptable

Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Table IV-4

(3) The Government will evaluate the extent of the Offeror’s ability to perform the referenced contract successfully in the areas of; (a) quality of product or services; (b) timeliness or scheduling of supplies/deliveries; (c) business relations/customer satisfaction; and (d) staffing (including teaming arrangement partner).

(4) The Government reserves the right to consider Past Performance Questionnaires received after the due date for receipt of proposals. The Government reserves the right to contact references for verification or additional information and the right to consider other relevant past performance information. The Government may call customers, whether or not provided by the Offeror, to inquire about the Offeror’s past performance. The Government does not assume the duty to search for data to cure the problems it finds with the information provided by the Offeror. The burden of providing thorough and complete past performance information remains with the Offeror.

NOTE: 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 shall be determined to have unknown (or “neutral”) past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered “Acceptable.”

7.0 PRICE FACTOR

The Government will evaluate Offeror’s price proposal by considering the following:

a. Completeness: The Price Schedule (Attachment 02) is completed as required. The proposal must clearly display the intended unit price and extended calculations.

b. Reasonableness: At the Contracting Officer’s discretion, price reasonableness may be presumed without further review based on adequate price competition. Where adequate price competition is deemed not to exist based on proposals received or other factors, the Government may determine the reasonableness of the Offeror’s proposed pricing following FAR 15.404- l (b)(2).

c. Unbalanced Pricing: Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly overstated or understated. The Offeror is cautioned that its proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

d. Total Evaluated Price: Offerors will be evaluated on price using the total evaluated prices shown in the Price Schedule, Attachment 02, provided by the Government. The total evaluated price will be the sum of the evaluated prices for the base period of performance (inclusive of Phase-In price) as well as the four potential one-year option periods and the potential six-month Option to Extend Services, and the IDIQ Education Support Services. The Government will calculate the total evaluated price as follows:

i. Core Services (Contract Level Funded): Offerors shall provide pricing for each core service as delineated in Attachment 02. The Core Services evaluated price will be calculated by summing the Base Period (inclusive of Phase-In price), Option Periods, and Option to Extend Services. The price for Option to Extend Services will be calculated by taking half of the proposed price for CLIN 0009 (Option Period 4).

ii. IDIQ (Task Orders): Education Support Services– Firm Fixed Price completion basis or FFP Level of Effort. The evaluated price will be calculated by taking the sum of the average labor rates proposed for each labor category and center (rounded to the nearest hundredth) multiplied by the Government estimated hours delineated in Attachment 02. The Government will also verify that all identified non-exempt labor categories are in accordance with the current wage determinations.

iii. Phase-In Services. The price of the Phase-in will be evaluated by applying price analysis techniques prescribed at FAR 15.404-1 (b) and (g). The Phase-In price is part of the Total Price for evaluation purposes.

8.0 EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS FOR AVOIDING, NEUTRALIZING OR

MITIGATING ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST (OCI)

The Government will review the OCI Mitigation Plan submitted by the Offeror. All such information and any other relevant information will be used by the Government to determine whether an award to the Offeror may create an organizational conflict of interest. If found to exist, the Government may (1) impose appropriate conditions which avoid such conflict, (2) disqualify the Offeror, (3) determine that it is otherwise in the best interest of the Government to contract with the Offeror by including appropriate conditions mitigating such conflict in the contract award, or (4) seek a waiver. If the Contracting Officer determines that an actual or significant potential conflict of interest exists that cannot reasonably be avoided neutralized or mitigated, the Offeror will be ineligible for award. The Government is free to communicate issues or non-acceptable aspects of the OCI approach with any Offeror and may allow Offerors to revise its submitted OCI approach without invoking “exchanges or discussions” in accordance with

FAR 15.306.

[End of Section]