Section M_Attachment 00B.pdf

H92254-25-RE-001

Section M_ Attachment 00B

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

M.0 GENERAL

M.0.1 Basis for Award

This section outlines the criteria the Government will use in evaluating the offerors’ capabilities and proposals for the SOF GLSS2 contract. The Government will compare each offeror’s capabilities and proposal elements against the predetermined evaluation criteria related to the Government’s requirement defined herein. This is a competitive, best value tradeoff source selection that will be conducted in accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation

(FAR) Part 15 and Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Part 215. The Government intends to award a single Indefinite-Delivery Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ) contract with up to a total 12-year performance period as a result of this solicitation. To arrive at a source selection decision, the Source Selection

Authority (SSA) will perform an integrated assessment using the evaluation factors described below, including tradeoffs if in the best interest of the Government. This may result in an award being made to a higher rated, higher priced offeror where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors.

M.0.2 Best Value Evaluation Procedures

The Government will evaluate all proposals received against Technical (Factor 1), Past Performance (Factor 2), Task Order Management (Factor 3), and Task Order Cost (Factor 4). As stated in Section L.0.9, Administrative

Criteria will be utilized as part of the separate determination of Contractor responsibility IAW FAR 9.104-1. A combined Technical and Risk rating technique will be used to evaluate Factor 1 and Factor 3. The Government will conduct evaluations at the subfactor level, however, an individual color rating for each subfactor within Factor 1 and

Factor 3 will not be assigned. Instead, the Government will assign a single-color rating (one at the Factor 1 level and one at the Factor 3 level) based on the evaluation findings and risk associated with each of the subfactors. The subfactors within Factor 1 are in descending order of importance and the subfactors within Factor 3 are equal in importance. Factor 2 will receive an overall confidence assessment rating. Factor 4 and its subfactors will not be given a color rating or scored.

Factor 1 is individually more important than Factor 2 and Factor 3 at the Factor level. Factor 2 and Factor 3 are equal in importance, and when combined are approximately equal to Factor 1. Factors 1, 2, and 3, when combined, are significantly more important than Factor 4. As the evaluation of Factors 1, 2, and 3 approach parity among the

Offerors, the relative importance of Factor 4 will increase.

M.0.2.1 Discussions and Competitive Range

In this source selection, the Government may establish a competitive range for the purpose of holding discussions

IAW FAR 15.306 procedures and this solicitation. If the Contracting Officer eliminates a proposal from the competitive range, the proposal will not be considered for award. Written notice of a Contracting Officers decision to eliminate will be provided to unsuccessful offeror(s) IAW FAR 15.503(a)(1). The Government reserves the right to award without discussions; therefore, offerors are encouraged to propose their most favorable terms and conditions.

M.0.2.2 Debriefings

The Contracting Officer will promptly notify offerors of any decision to exclude them from the competitive range if a competitive range is established; whereupon, the offeror may request and receive a debriefing IAW FAR 15.505.

Offerors excluded from the competitive range may request a pre-award debriefing or post-award debriefing. NOTE:

Offerors excluded from the competitive range are entitled to a single debriefing. The Contracting Officer will notify unsuccessful offerors in the competitive range of the source selection decision IAW FAR 15.506. Upon such notification, unsuccessful offerors may request and receive a debriefing. Offerors desiring a debriefing must make their request IAW the requirements of FAR 15.505 or 15.506, as applicable.

M.0.3 Evaluation Criteria

M.0.4 Definitions:

During evaluation of proposals, the following definitions are applicable:

Significant Strength is an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal with appreciable merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the considerable advantage of the Government during contract performance.

Strength is an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal with merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the advantage of the Government during contract performance.

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

Significant Weakness in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Deficiency is 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.

M.1 FACTOR 1: Technical

Under the Technical Factor, the Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror’s proposal demonstrates a sound, practical approach for satisfying the requirements stated in the solicitation. The Government will utilize the combined Technical and Risk rating methodology contained within Table 2 below, which includes consideration of risk of unsuccessful contract performance in conjunction with the evaluation findings; significant strengths, strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies of the offeror’s proposal when determining the

Technical color rating. Evaluation of risk will assess the degree to which the offeror’s proposed approach for meeting the requirements outlined in this solicitation may cause disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the increased likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. Risk is one aspect of the technical evaluation and contributes to determining the Factor level color rating. If an offeror’s proposal demonstrates a material failure to meet a Government requirement, it is a deficiency

Volume 1, Technical Factor 1 Color/Risk (All Subfactors)

Management Organizational Structure and

Business Processes Subfactor 1 Not Assigned Individual Rating

Teaming Arrangements and Small Business

Participation Subfactor 2 Not Assigned Individual Rating

Phase-In Transition Subfactor 3 Not Assigned Individual Rating

Volume 2, Past Performance Factor 2 Confidence Level Rating

Volume 3, Task Order Management Factor 3 Color/Risk (All Subfactors)

Task Order 1 Subfactor 1 Not Assigned Individual Rating

Task Order 2 Subfactor 2 Not Assigned Individual Rating

Task Order 3 Subfactor 3 Not Assigned Individual Rating

Volume 4, Task Order Cost Factor 4 Total Most Probable Cost

(All Subfactors)

Task Order 1 Subfactor 1 Task Order 1 Most Probable Cost

(MPC)

Task Order 2 Subfactor 2 Task Order 2 MPC

Task Order 3 Subfactor 3 Task Order 3 MPC

SECTION M - Table 1. Evaluation Criteria in the offeror’s proposal. The Government will determine if the proposal meets or exceeds requirements, to what degree the proposed approach indicates an understanding of the requirements, and the level of risk to unsuccessful performance per the color rating definitions contained within Table 2 below. At the Governments discretion, identified strengths may be incorporated into any resultant contract award (i.e., added to the PWS, added as a

Section H clause, etc.) as appropriate.

M.1.1 Subfactor 1: Management Organizational Structure and Business Processes

Under this subfactor, the Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror’s outlined plans for the organizational structure demonstrate clearly defined responsibilities and sound business management practices and processes to meet the organization, logistics, sourcing, management expertise, and enterprise mindset required in this solicitation.

a. Knowledge and Expertise. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposed team

(including key management personnel) collectively demonstrates the knowledge and expertise required of this solicitation and processes in place to ensure continued technical expertise throughout the contract performance period.

b. Management Capability. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposed team demonstrates the ability to manage all task order pre-award functions through award, while simultaneously managing the performance of existing orders, Enterprise functions (PWS 4.2), and General Management

Requirements (PWS 4.3).

c. Understanding Equipment, Services, and Accountability. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s understanding of the type of equipment and services required and their ability to maintain accountability across all PWS requirements while still effectively supporting and managing requirements for multiple customers at times utilizing the same workforce.

d. Workforce Retention. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s capability to maintain the required technical expertise and workforce as the program support requirements (PWS 4.1) ebb and flow without impacting the level of performance for existing efforts or unreasonably driving up costs.

e. Government-Owned Business and Automation Systems. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s understanding and capability to interface with and utilize Government-owned business and automation systems.

f. Material Sourcing and Management. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s ability to demonstrate how efficient management of material sourcing can provide cost savings and alleviate schedule risk.

Additionally, the Government will evaluate the extent to which the offerors can demonstrate how they would manage remaining or excess contractor acquired material and property from Task Orders more efficiently to benefit the government and to minimize excess property onsite.

g. Proposed Enhancements. The Government will evaluate more favorably any proposed enhancements that demonstrate the ability to increase transparency, increase automation of processes, enhance (or replace) automation systems, gain efficiencies through increased enterprise-focused business processes that would be of benefit to performance, and provide more accurate and actionable data.

M.1.2 Subfactor 2: Teaming Arrangements and Small Business Participation

Under this subfactor, the Government will evaluate the offeror’s management approach to interact with, allocate work to, and simultaneously exercise oversight and control over subcontractor cost, schedule, and performance of multiple teaming partners.

a. Capabilities and Expertise. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror’s teaming arrangement has the required capabilities and expertise across the three Core Competencies in addition to the required Enterprise functions (PWS 4.2) and General Management Requirements (PWS 4.3) and clearly demonstrates an understanding of all the requirements.

b. Partnerships, Reach-Back and Recruiting. The Government will evaluate the team’s existing partnerships, reach-back capability, and ability to effectively and in a timely manner acquire additional team members and/or supply sources as required over the period of performance to ensure any future new requirements or expansions are supported.

c. Subcontract Management. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s subcontract management expertise and practices for assessing the technical and contractual requirements of solicited tasks and determining the most effective allocation across the team while still ensuring quality task order proposals are provided in the required timeline to meet customer requirements.

d. Small Business. The Government will evaluate the extent to which small business firms are specifically identified in the proposal, the extent of commitment to small business firms, and the complexity and variety of the work small business firms are proposed to perform.

M.1.3 Subfactor 3: Phase-In Transition

Under this subfactor, the Government will evaluate:

a. Management Approach and Experience. The offeror’s approach to providing sound business practices, processes (including the various OCONUS deployment processes), and expertise in their management approach to transition the SOF GLSS contract as described in the offeror’s phase-in transition plan. The evaluation will include an assessment of the offeror’s strategy to execute a realistic, organized, seamless, and timely contract phase-in leading to assumption of full contractual responsibility within the required timelines (PWS 7.0) while minimizing impacts to SOF users.

b. Understanding of the Enterprise. The Government will further evaluate the extent to which the offeror’s transition plan and timeline demonstrate a clear understanding of the Enterprise functions (PWS 4.2), the importance of turn-key transition, the required timelines for transition, and appropriate risk mitigation strategies to maintain those Enterprise functions during transition. The phase-in transition plan will become part of any resultant contract award as an attachment to the PWS.

M.1.4 Factor Rating

For factor 1, a combined technical risk rating will be assigned according to the criteria defined in tables 2 and 3 below.

SECTION M - Table 2. Combined Technical and Risk Rating Method

Color Rating Adjectival Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength or significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable, and/or risk of performance is unacceptably high.

SECTION M - Table 3. Risk Rating Descriptions from Table 2

Adjectival Rating Description

Low Proposal may contain weakness/weaknesses which have low potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Normal contractor emphasis and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties

Moderate Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may have a moderate potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

High Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to have high potential to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close

Government monitoring will unlikely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a deficiency or a combination of significant weaknesses that causes an unacceptable level of risk of unsuccessful performance.

M.2 FACTOR 2: Past Performance

Evaluation of the Past Performance Factor considers the offeror’s (to include proposed major subcontractors) demonstrated record of performance in providing services and products that meet users’ needs and in past performance regarding subcontracting. Past Performance evaluation will focus on how well the offeror performed or is performing on other recent and relevant contracts. For proposed major subcontractors evaluation will focus solely on work that the subcontractor is proposed to perform under this contract. “Major” is defined as those subcontractors who the offeror feels are key to demonstrating its ability to perform the entire scope of the proposed effort.

M.2.1 Recency and Relevancy

The Government will conduct a review and evaluation of all performance data obtained to determine how closely the work performed under those efforts relates to the current requirement utilizing the recency (L.2.3.1) and relevancy criteria outlined in Section L.2.3.2, Table 2.

All efforts meeting the recency criteria will be assessed for relevancy. Relevancy determination involves a subjective, holistic assessment of overall contract relevance. For those efforts determined somewhat relevant or higher, a performance evaluation will be conducted. The Government will use Contractor Performance Assessment

Reporting System (CPARS) reports and Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) completed by offeror-provided references. PPQs will be distributed by offerors using a government-provided template, with completed questionnaires returned directly to the Government by the references. Point of Contact (POC) interviews may be conducted at the Government's discretion. The Government is not limited to these resources.

M.2.2 Confidence Assessment

Once all data has been gathered, the Government will assign a confidence assessment rating for Factor 2 considering the offeror’s team’s overall recent and relevant performance record. The Government will use a holistic approach to determine the Government’s overall level of confidence of the offeror’s team’s (including both the prime and major subcontractors) ability to successfully perform the required effort. The confidence assessments ratings with definitions that will be utilized are contained within Table 4 below.

SECTION M - Table 4. Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method

Adjectival Rating Description

Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

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

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

M.3 FACTOR 3: Task Order Management

The Government will utilize the same combined Technical and Risk rating methodology and rating assessments as shown in Section M1.4, Table 2 and Table 3. At the Governments discretion, identified strengths may be incorporated into any resultant contract award (i.e., added to the PWS, added as a Section H clause, etc.) as appropriate.

Under the Task Order Management Factor, the Government will evaluate the offeror’s overall approach for each separate task order (subfactor) to manage and execute the specific task order. This includes evaluation of the Task

Order Management Approach and the proposed PWS in response to the Government’s Statement of Objectives

(SOO) for each representative task order (subfactor).

M.3.1 Approach

The Government will evaluate the extent to which each of the offeror’s management approaches demonstrate a sound, practical approach with appropriate risk mitigation strategies to provide uninterrupted, high-quality work throughout the anticipated task order period of performance.

M.3.2 Personnel

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror’s approach demonstrates an understanding of the requirements and the ability to recruit and retain qualified personnel with the knowledge and expertise to successfully execute the task order requirements. The Government will further evaluate the extent to which the offeror’s approach demonstrates an understanding of how to successfully turnover personnel and include knowledge transfer during task order transition while minimizing degradation in services.

M.3.3 Enhancements

The Government will favorably evaluate any enhancements that demonstrate the ability to increase transparency, increases automation of processes, enhance (or provide new, more efficient) automation systems, efficiencies through business processes that would be of benefit to performance, and providing more accurate and actionable data of each task order where applicable.

M.3.4 OCONUS Support

Additionally, for Subfactor 3 only, the evaluation will include an assessment of the offeror’s infrastructure and procedures to successfully deploy personnel during performance of the task order.

M.4 FACTOR 4: Task Order Cost

Cost proposals will be evaluated for realism. Inconsistencies between the proposed Task Order Cost Volume and

Technical or Task Order Management Volumes or other cost anomalies may be assessed as proposal risk under the

Technical or Task Order Management Factors.

M.4.1 Enterprise Management Functions and Business Unit

The Government will use the offeror’s proposed RFP Attachment 10 to evaluate the extent to which the offeror’s assumptions and/or enhancements proposed in Volume 1 (if applicable to the Enterprise management functions) demonstrate an understanding of the Enterprise management functions (PWS 4.2) and are consistent with Factor 1 proposals. Cost realism analysis of the submitted RFP Attachment 10 will be conducted IAW M.4.2 Task Order

Proposals.

M.4.2 Task Order Proposals

IAW FAR 15.404 the Government will use cost analysis techniques and procedures to determine whether the offeror’s proposed costs reflected in RFP Attachments 11a-c are realistic for the work to be performed, reflect a clear understanding of the solicitation requirements, and are consistent with the various elements of the offeror’s

Technical and Task Order Management proposals. This section also applies to RFP Attachment 10 since it shall serve as the clear buildup of the Enterprise Management Overhead rates, which will be applied to the representative task orders in RFP Attachments 11a-c.

The Government will conduct cost realism on costs proposed for each task order and then compute a Most Probable

Cost (MPC) for each task order (Subfactors 1-3). The Government’s cost realism analysis will assess the assumptions and/or enhancements proposed in Volume 1 or Volume 3 used to adjust the Government-provided information in RFP Attachment 10 and each of the RFP Attachments 11a-c. Additionally, the analysis will assess the direct and indirect rates used to develop proposed costs and the likelihood that the proposed technical and management approach can successfully accomplish the requirements at the proposed costs. Evaluations may adjust costs for each task order (to include adjustments to RFP Attachment 10 as the buildup of the Enterprise management overhead rates) to arrive at a total task order MPC for each task order as outlined within RFP Attachments 11a-c.

The Government will then sum the three MPCs for a total MPC for Factor 4. The total MPC will not receive a color rating or score.