Section IV NEHCSS 52.212-2 - Evaluation Criteria Final RFP.pdf

80NSSC22R0013 NASA Enterprise-Wide HC Support Services (NEHCSS)

Section IV-52.212-2

1.0 52.217-5 EVALUATION OF OPTIONS (Jul 1990)…………………………………...2

2.0 AWARD WITHOUT DISCUSSIONS

3.0 SOURCE SELECTION AND EVALUATION FACTORS (GENERAL)

4.0 52.212-2 EVALUATION -- COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL

SERVICES (NOV 2021)

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)

80NSSC22R0013 NASA Enterprise-Wide HC Support Services (NEHCSS)

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 Products and Commercial Services (Nov 2021).” 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 Officer 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.

80NSSC22R0013 NASA Enterprise-Wide HC Support Services (NEHCSS)

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 -- COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS AND

COMMERCIAL SERVICES (NOV 2021)

(a) The Government will award three (3) to four (4) multiple award Indefinite-Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contracts resulting from this solicitation to responsible offerors whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The Government reserves the right to award more or fewer if the SSA determines it is in the Government’s best interest. The SSA will consider the Government’s expected volume of work, available funding, adequate competition, and the availability of technically acceptable proposals. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

• Factor 1: Mission Suitability o MS-1: Technical Approach o MS-2: Management Approach o MS-3: Staffing Approach o MS-4: Phase-In Approach

• Factor 2: Past Performance

• Factor 3: Price

As individual factors, Mission Suitability is significantly 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, and unacceptable Past Performance rating will be ineligible for award.

(b) 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

80NSSC22R0013 NASA Enterprise-Wide HC Support Services (NEHCSS) 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 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 IV-3 below for adjective

80NSSC22R0013 NASA Enterprise-Wide HC Support Services (NEHCSS) ratings). This factor is used to evaluate an Offeror’s ability to successfully perform the requirements of the SOW in a manner that satisfies an enterprise service approach, establishes 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:

Subfactor Points Subfactor 1: Technical Approach 300

Subfactor 2: Management Approach 300

Subfactor 3: Staffing Approach 300

Subfactor 4: Phase-In Plan 100

TOTAL 1000

Table IV-2

The adjectival rating definitions and percentile ranges are found in NFS 1815.305(a)(3). 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.

Offerors that receive a final rating of Poor at any Factor/Subfactor level are ineligible for award.

[space left intentionally blank]

80NSSC22R0013 NASA Enterprise-Wide HC Support Services (NEHCSS)

Table IV-3

MS-1: TECHNICAL APPROACH SUBFACTOR:

NASA will evaluate the offeror’s proposed technical approach for each element of the SOW in performance of this contract against the following criteria:

(a) Understanding of requirements. The extent to which the proposal demonstrates a clear understanding of the requirements in the SOW to be satisfied, issues to be resolved, and the required tasks, services, and skill sets

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 deficiency, 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 deficiency, 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 deficiency, 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

80NSSC22R0013 NASA Enterprise-Wide HC Support Services (NEHCSS) required to achieve program objectives. The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the Offeror’s understanding of the requirements is adequately reflected in its approach to ensuring integration throughout the program.

(b) Completeness/Adequacy of response. The extent to which the proposal completely and adequately considers and satisfies the SOW and other requirements specified in the solicitation. The extent to which each requirement of the solicitation has been addressed in the proposal in accordance with the proposal instructions in the solicitation.

(c) Feasibility of approach. The extent to which the proposed approach is workable and the end results achievable. The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the Offeror’s methods and approach to meeting the requirements in a timely manner provide the Government with a high level of confidence of successful execution and minimize the risk of performance problems. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the Offeror is expected to be able to successfully complete the proposed tasks and technical requirements within the required schedule.

Marginal levels of detail could indicate a lack of understanding concerning requirements and may result in the entire proposal receiving an unfavorable rating and/or being eliminated from the competitive range.

Unsupported promises to comply with contractual requirements will not be sufficient. Proposals must contain supporting rationale for any statements relating to proposed performance. Each proposal will be rated strictly in accordance with its written content.

No assumptions will be made by evaluators regarding areas that are not addressed in the Offeror’s written proposal.

Offerors are cautioned that “parroting” of the technical requirements or the SOW with a statement of intent to perform does not reflect an understanding of the requirement or capability to perform. Offerors are responsible for including sufficient details to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of each proposal. Proprietary information shall be clearly marked.

MS-2: MANAGEMENT APPROACH SUBFACTOR:

NASA will evaluate the offeror’s proposed approach to enterprise level contract management oversight for each element of the SOW against the following criteria:

80NSSC22R0013 NASA Enterprise-Wide HC Support Services (NEHCSS)

(a) Organizational Structure. The extent to which the proposal includes an organizational structure chart that demonstrates the ability to efficiently and effectively manage work (i.e. continuity of services, workload fluctuations, rapid turnaround requests), particularly same or similar, and consistent services across the multiple sites (NASA Centers and Field locations). NASA will evaluate the offeror’s responsibilities and authority, as well as the qualifications, experience, and credentials, of the Contract Program Manager (Key Personnel). NASA will evaluate the offeror’s proposed interfaces with its subcontractors and identify the specific SOW sections the prime and each subcontractor is proposed to perform.

(b) Management and organization processes and procedures. The extent to which the proposal demonstrates a clear and complete contract management oversight plan and organization processes and procedures to manage diverse efforts including multiple Task Orders across the multiple sites (NASA Centers and Field locations), or tasks with fragmented services at various locations.

(c) Quality control. The extent to which the proposal demonstrates quality and standardization of services across the enterprise, and metrics where practicable to ensure compliance with the Government Quality Assurance Plan and that the stated performance objectives of each Task are met.

(d) Risk and Issue management. The extent to which the proposal demonstrates risk and issue mitigation and the organizational approach to managing the risks while maintaining the quality of work.

(e) Innovation. The extent to which the proposal demonstrates the use of lessons learned to develop and implement new and innovative ways to deliver quality services.

MS-3: STAFFING APPROACH SUBFACTOR:

NASA will evaluate the offeror’s proposed approach for recruiting and retention of employees, including proposed subcontractors, joint-ventures, and teaming partners for each element of the SOW in performance of this contract as follows:

(a) Staffing Approach. The extent to which the proposal demonstrates an approach for recruiting, readily accessing, and retaining talent, and managing attrition so as to provide a qualified and highly motivated workforce for the contract. Qualification requirements for the labor categories that will be used to perform Human Capital support services are identified in Attachment (04), Proposed Labor Categories and Descriptions.

(b) Diversity & Inclusion: The extent to which the proposal demonstrates an approach to a commitment to diversity and inclusion that is aligned with

80NSSC22R0013 NASA Enterprise-Wide HC Support Services (NEHCSS)

NASA’s Policy Statement, which reads in part, “…we embrace the critical importance of cultivating and empowering a diverse and inclusive workforce and work environment- enabling NASA to attract the widest and deepest pools of talent, leverage the capabilities of our exceptional workforce; and empower all personnel to be authentic, to participate, and to fully contribute.”

MS-4: PHASE-IN PLAN SUBFACTOR:

NASA will evaluate the degree to which the Offeror’s overall phase-in approach for each element of the SOW ensures:

• 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.

• Key phase-in milestones and critical tasks are identified and achievable.

• Risk identification and mitigation plans meet the requirements as specified in Data Procurement Document Attachment (03), Data Procurement Document #08, Phase-In Plan.

6.0 PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR

The past performance evaluation considers each Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance separately 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.

80NSSC22R0013 NASA Enterprise-Wide HC Support Services (NEHCSS)

(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 NEHCSS 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.

Unacceptable Based on the offeror's performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to

80NSSC22R0013 NASA Enterprise-Wide HC Support Services (NEHCSS) 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 the Offeror's overall price proposal for SOW requirements 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.

80NSSC22R0013 NASA Enterprise-Wide HC Support Services (NEHCSS)

(d) Total Price: Offerors will be evaluated on price using the total evaluated prices shown in the Price Schedule, Attachment (02), provided by the Government. This evaluation shall include the entire 5-year ordering period and the potential six-month Option to Extend Services. The Government will calculate a total price follows:

• IDIQ (Task Orders): – FFP and FFP-LOE. Price will be evaluated based on the sum of the labor rates proposed for each labor category multiplied by the Government estimated hours delineated in Attachment (02). The basis for estimate for the rates proposed for each Center (including NASA HQ), Field Activity, and Offsite will be reviewed as a point of reference and may be used as part of price analysis.

• Phase-In Services. Price will be evaluated based on the FFP lump sum proposed.

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]