Section M (A0006).docx

Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award Table of Contents

List of Tables

H95001-15-R-0001-0006 Page M-1 of M-14

IRES Solicitation, Section M

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 and award term periods. This applies to options under FAR clause 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services. Evaluation of options under FAR 52.217-8 will be accomplished by using 50% of the future estimated price for the Year 8 ordering period (last award term period) to determine the price for a 6-month option period. Evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

(End of Provision)

Information submitted in Volumes 1 (Contract Documentation, Part 1) and 5 (Contract Documentation, Part 2) of the proposal will be reviewed by the Government for compliance with the solicitation and will also be used, along with any other information available to the Government, to determine an offeror’s responsibility consistent with the requirements of FAR 9.104.

M.2.3 Award Terms The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all award terms to the total price for the basic requirement and options (see FAR 52.217-5 above). Evaluation of award terms will not obligate the Government to execute the award terms.

M.2.4 Number of Contracts to be Awarded Reference paragraphs (c)(4), (f)(5), and (f)(6) of FAR 52.215-1, the Government intends to award a single contract for all of the Integrated Research and Development for Enterprise Solutions requirements; however, the government reserves the right to make no award at all.

M.2.5 Incorporation of Proposal into the Contract Exhibit L-2 identifies the elements of the proposal that will be incorporated into the contract and task order awards. When the proposal offers a level of service or performance that exceeds the solicitation requirements or Government’s expectations and provides benefit to the Government, those specific elements of the proposal may also be incorporated into the awarded contract and / or task orders.

The evaluation factors, subfactors and evaluation ratings identified in Exhibit M-1 will be used to evaluate each proposal. Subfactor ratings will not be rolled up to a single factor rating.

Exhibit M-1. Evaluation Factors, Subfactors and Evaluation Ratings

Factor 1: Technical Approach

Subfactor 1b: IRES Mission Execution

Subfactor 1c: Small Business Participation and Commitment Plan

Factor 2: Contractor Performance Work Statements

Subfactor 2b: Enterprise Information Technology Services

Subfactor 2c: Facilities Engineering and Operations

Factor 4: Acceptable / Unacceptable Criteria

Subfactor 4b: Past Performance

Each proposal will be evaluated against the solicitation factors and subfactors established in the solicitation. The technical rating reflects the degree to which the proposed approach meets or does not meet the minimum performance or capability requirements through an assessment of the strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, and risks of a proposal, as defined in Exhibit M-2. Evaluator comments identified as an ‘uncertainty’ will be clarified during discussions and re-assessed as a strength, weakness, significant weakness, deficiency or removed as a comment.

Exhibit M-2. Definition of Strength, Uncertainty, Weakness, Significant Weakness and Deficiency

Reference DoD Source Selection Procedures (March 4, 2011) and MDA 5013.06-M

M.4.2 Evaluation Methodology 1: Combined Technical / Risk Rating 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 listed in Exhibit M-3.

Exhibit M-3. Combined Technical / Risk Ratings and Definitions

Reference DoD Source Selection Procedures (March 4, 2011) and MDA 5013.06-M

M.4.3 Evaluation Methodology 2: Separate Technical / Risk Rating The offeror’s technical solution will be rated separately from the risk associated with the technical approach.

M.4.3.1 Technical Rating The technical rating evaluates the quality of the offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirement. Technical evaluations shall utilize the ratings listed in Exhibit M-4.

Exhibit M-4. Technical Ratings and Definitions

Reference DoD Source Selection Procedures (March 4, 2011) and MDA 5013.06-M

M.4.3.2 Technical Risk Rating The risk rating considers the risk associated with the technical approach in meeting the requirement. Assessment of technical risk, which is manifested by the identification of weakness(es), considers potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. Technical risk evaluations shall utilize the ratings listed in Exhibit M-5.

Exhibit M-5. Technical Risk Ratings and Definitions

Reference DoD Source Selection Procedures (March 4, 2011) and MDA 5013.06-M; Colors may be used for presentation purposes.

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s overall technical and management capability.

a. Implementing an organization to execute multiple stakeholder / customer missions as identified in the IRES Contract SOO (solicitation Attachment J-01);

b. Managing partners, subcontractors and suppliers, and evolving the organization as new opportunities and requirements are identified over the course of the contract; and

c. Developing, standardizing, deploying and improving processes.

a. Performing systems engineering;

b. Maintaining an acceptable cybersecurity posture;

c. Conducting risk management;

d. Maintaining currency; and

e. Performing software engineering and modeling and simulation.

a. Addressing all elements of Section L.8.1.3.2.

b. Executing to the proposed goals. Offeror’s proposed goals must meet, at a minimum, the Government’s small business participation goals identified in Exhibit L-4. (Notes: Increasing small business participation and commitment goals alone will not result in higher ratings. Because this is an indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity contract, the extent to which small business firms are specifically identified in the proposal is significantly less important than the approach to executing to the proposed goals.)

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed approach provided in the narrative, CPWS and BOE, as captured in the CPWS, to delivering products and services at specified performance thresholds, and the use / incorporation of tools, innovative processes and automation (as appropriate), to achieve stated outcomes.

a. Conducting efficient administration of the SE&PI task order;

b. Delivering an overarching, program-wide systems engineering program;

c. Providing program integration; and

d. Providing continuity of services for transition of products and services from IRES to the follow-on contractor.

a. Conducting efficient administration of the EITS task order;

b. Managing the portfolio of Enterprise IT Services;

c. Providing a cohesive cyber security service in an ever-changing RDT&E environment;

d. Delivering private cloud-based data center services;

e. Providing reliable and efficient customer support services;

f. Maintaining and sustain delivery of critical network services;

g. Providing full-lifecycle application administration services;

h. Providing telephony services inclusive of Defense Red Switch Network (DRSN) voice services; and

i. Delivering IT capability, provisioning and integrating emergent requirements.

a. Conducting efficient administration of the FE&O task order;

b. Executing facilities engineering requirements; and

c. Executing facilities operations and maintenance requirements.

The cost/price evaluation assesses each offeror’s proposed cost / price for reasonableness and realism. The burden of proof for cost / price reasonableness and realism rests with the offeror. An assessment that the proposal is not reasonable or realistic may result in the offer being considered unacceptable for award. The Government will evaluate each offeror’s proposal using one or more of the techniques described in FAR 15.404. Information in the proposal and information obtained from other sources such as DCAA, DCMA, as well as information obtained or provided by the evaluation teams may be considered under the cost / price factor.

M.5.3.2 Reasonableness A cost is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business.

M.5.3.3.4 The SSEB’s cost realism analysis on the cost-reimbursement portions of the proposed price will result in three probable cost components that will be used in the total evaluated price calculation.

· Task Orders 2000 and 3000 Probable Cost / Price: The first probable cost / price component is the result of a realism analysis of Task Orders 2000 and 3000, including the proposed direct labor hours, direct and indirect rates utilized to develop all proposed burdened labor rates (BLRs), as well as offeror identified other direct costs (ODCs) and applicable burdens (see RFP Section L.8.2.1.4.2(2)). The probable costs will also include the solicitation specified ODCs, plus applicable burdens. The proposed target fee and the proposed award fee pool will also be included in the probable cost of Tasks 2000 and 3000.

· Future Estimated Probable Cost / Price (cost-reimbursement portions): The second probable cost / price component is the result of a realism analysis of the Future Estimated Probable Cost / Price, including the proposed BLRs for all labor categories for the total anticipated contract ordering period. The probable cost / price is calculated by applying the realistic / probable BLRs to the Government labor hours specified in the solicitation. This probable cost will also include the solicitation specified ODCs, plus applicable burdens, as well as the proposed target fee and award fee pool. This probable cost / price ensures that BLRs for all labor categories, in all years, are included in the cost / price evaluation.

· Option Clause 52.217-8 Probable Cost / Price (cost-reimbursement portions): The third probable cost / price component is the result of a realism analysis of the Option to Extend Services in accordance with FAR Clause 52.217-8. Consistent with paragraph M.1, the probable cost / price will be calculated by using 50% of the Future Estimated Probable Cost / Price (cost-reimbursement portions) for the Year 8 ordering period.

M.5.3.4 Total Evaluated Price The total evaluated price will be used to determine best value. The total evaluated price will be calculated using the following components:

Task Order 2000: Systems Engineering and Program Integration Probable Cost / Price Task Order 3000: Enterprise Information Technology Services Probable Cost / Price Task Order 4000: Facilities Engineering and Operations Ceiling Price Future Estimated Probable Cost / Price - Cost-Reimbursement Portions Future Estimated Ceiling Price - Fixed-Price-Incentive Portions Option Clause 52.217-8 Probable Cost / Price - Cost-Reimbursement Portions Option Clause 52.217-8 Ceiling Price - Fixed-Price-Incentive Portions Total Evaluated Price To promote competition, the price of the Transition [Task Order 1000] will not be included in the total evaluated price for the purpose of making the best value tradeoff decision; but it will be evaluated for reasonableness and realism.

M.5.4 Factor 4: Acceptable / Unacceptable Factors Subfactors 4a and 4b will be evaluated on an Acceptable / Unacceptable basis using the rating at Exhibits M-6 and M-7 respectively.

a. Conducting efficient administration of the Transition task order;

b. Executing task order negotiations; and

c. Capturing and documenting transition lessons learned.

Exhibit M-6. Acceptable / Unacceptable Ratings and Definitions

Reference DoD Source Selection Procedures (March 4, 2011); Colors may be used for presentation purposes.

Exhibit M-7. Past Performance Evaluation Ratings and Definitions

Reference DoD Source Selection Procedures (March 4, 2011); Colors may be used for presentation purposes.

Note: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of Acceptability / Unacceptability, “Unknown” shall be considered “Acceptable.”

An assessment of each past performance effort will be made to determine if it is recent. If any part of the contract performance falls within the defined timeframe, the contract in its entirety will be considered in the past performance evaluation. Past performance efforts that are not recent will not be evaluated. Exhibit M-8 defines the recency ratings.

Exhibit M-8. Recency Ratings and Definitions

Note: Colors may be used for presentation purposes

Exhibit M-9. Relevancy Ratings and Definitions

Note: Colors may be used for presentation purposes.

M.5.5.2.2 For each past performance effort, “similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities” is described as follows:

MANAGEMENT: Prime contractor’s experience in managing: 1) complex (e.g., multiple task orders, multiple customers, dependent and independent schedules, etc.) cost-reimbursement or fixed-price-incentive contracts; and 2) teams similar in size / composition of the team proposed; or TECHNICAL: The past performance effort involved performance similar to some of the magnitude, effort, and / or complexities this solicitation requires for any or all of the IRES HLOs or transition. Relevant past performance does not require specific experience in the BMDS domain; rather, provisioning of services related to operational support and testing environments, regardless of domain, will be considered.

Exhibit M-10. Quality Ratings and Definitions

Note: Colors may be used for presentation purposes.

Exhibit M-11. Small Business Utilization Ratings and Definitions

Note: Colors may be used for presentation purposes.

IRES Solicitation, Section M