Section M_Draft.docx

B. BASIS FOR AWARD (Section M)

The award will be made based on the best overall (i.e., best value) proposal that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the four (4) evaluation factors: Factor 1 Transition, Management, and Technical Approach, Factor 2 Past Performance, Factor 3 Cost/Price and Factor 4 Small Business Participation.

The Government will evaluate each offeror’s proposal based on the following evaluation areas (presented in their relative order of importance): Factor 1 and Factor 2 are equal in importance. Factors 1 and 2 (combined) are more important than Factor 3. Factor 3 is more important than Factor 4. To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than “Acceptable” must be achieved for Factor 1 Transition, Management, and Technical Approach (to include all subfactors) and Factor 2 – Past Performance factor. Large business offerors must have an acceptable Small Business Subcontracting Plan to receive an award in accordance with FAR 19.702(a). Offerors will be cautioned that the award may not necessarily be made to the lowest cost offered.

C. FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal: Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below. The Government reserves the right to make award based upon the Cost/Price factor in the event that the (a) Transition, Management, and Technical Approach, (b) Past Performance, and (c) Small Business Participation evaluation results of all the offerors’ proposals are substantially the same.

Subfactor 3 is more important than Subfactor 2. Subfactor 2 is more important than Subfactor 1.

Evaluation of the offeror’s proposal shall address each Technical subfactor as it applies to the Performance Work Statement (PWS). A detailed explanation of the criteria for the evaluation is set forth in the “Evaluation Approach”, Paragraph D of this section. The Government will assign each Technical subfactor an adjectival rating and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the identified findings when evaluating each proposal.

Factor 2: Past Performance: Each offeror’s past performance will be reviewed to determine relevancy and confidence assessment.

Factor 3: Cost/Price: The resulting award will be a C-type contract with FFP and CPFF CLINs. Cost realism will be utilized in the evaluation of Cost Reimbursable efforts. Price reasonableness will be utilized in the evaluation of the Firm-Fixed Price effort.

Factor 4. Small Business Participation: Each offeror’s level and degree of commitment to utilize small business in execution of the requirement will be evaluated.

D. EVALUATION APPROACH

The Source Selection Team (SST) will evaluate all proposals. The SST will not evaluate proposal pages that exceed the page count specified in Table 2.A. The Government, at its discretion, will remove excess pages over the maximum allowed. The following pages will not be removed: Cover, Summary/Overview, Table of Contents, Table of Figures, Table of Tables.

1. The overarching evaluation approach for all factors and subfactors is as follows:

a. Adequacy of Response. The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the offeror’s methods and approach have adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirements specified in the RFP. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which each requirement has been addressed in the proposal in accordance with the proposal submission section of the RFP.

b. Feasibility of Approach. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the proposed approach is workable and the end results achievable. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which successful performance is contingent upon proven devices and techniques. 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.

2. The Transition, Management, and Technical Approach factor is divided into the following subfactors:

Subfactor 1 (Transition): This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s proposed Transition Approach for the basic contract period and all option years. Marginal levels of overall Transition Approach could indicate a lack of understanding concerning mission requirements and may result in the entire proposal receiving an unfavorable rating and/or being eliminated from the competitive range. The Government will evaluate the risk of Offeror’s unsuccessful contract performance for each of the items on this Sub-Factor. The evaluation will focus on the offerors’:

1. 1.1.a. Transition Plan

1) The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s transition plan to ensure the offeror understands the scope and complexity of this contract.

2) The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s transition plan and milestone chart to gain confidence that the Offeror has demonstrated a detailed understanding of the transition required during the phase-in period and will be fully operational at the completion of the phase-in period.

3) The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s transition plan and milestone chart that describes how the Offeror intends to implement and support transition activities during the transition phase out period at the end of the contract.

4) The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed contract key transition milestones to ensure the Offeror addresses minimum necessary activities and proposes realistic execution timeframes.

1. 1.1.b. Risk. The Government will evaluate Offeror’s identified contract transition risks (such as transfer of classified information, GFP/GFI, etc.) and proposed mitigation approach to ensure offeror understands the specific risks for this transition.

1. 1.1.c. Key Staff Positions. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal of key staff positions to ensure that the Offeror has the understanding and labor resources to effectively handle the technical, contract management, administrative responsibilities and scope.

Subfactor 2 (Management Approach): This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s proposed Management Approach. Marginal levels of overall Management Approach could indicate a lack of understanding concerning mission requirements and may result in the entire proposal receiving an unfavorable rating and/or being eliminated from the competitive range. The Government will evaluate the risk of Offeror’s unsuccessful contract performance for each of the items on this Sub-Factor. Major emphasis will be placed on the following:

1. 1.2.a. Organizational Structure. The Government will evaluate the Offeror's organizational structure (inclusive of subcontractors) to ensure that the Offeror understands the labor resources required to effectively handle technical requirements, contract management, administrative responsibilities, and scope of the contract.

1. 1.2.b. Roles and Responsibilities. The Government will evaluate the Offeror's organization flowchart to ensure the offeror has clearly defined lines of responsibility, clearly defined levels of decision authority, clearly defined location of personnel, and adequate and efficient communications/interfaces.

1. 1.2.c. Management Strategy. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Management strategy to hire and retain proposed specialized and technical skills, staffing level, and knowledge base required to achieve requirements through the life of the contract. This plan shall address the Offeror’s mitigation strategy for handling potential funding shortfalls and subsequent reprioritization of manpower and logistics resources.

1. 1.2.d. Surge. The Government will evaluate Offeror's approach to overtime, surge, and prioritization of manpower resources.

1. 1.2.e. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s subcontract management approach, including minor mods and annual service and support agreements.

1. 1.2.f. Government Furnished Information and Property. The Government will evaluate the Offeror's approach to managing support resources, technical data, spares, support equipment, maintenance, Government-Furnished Property (GFP) accountability, device status reporting, minor modifications, and technicians to ensure normal and surge trainer availability requirements.

1. 1.2.g. Inventory Control. The Government will evaluate the Offeror's purchasing, inventory control, and inventory reporting approach.

Subfactor 3 (Technical Approach): This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s proposed Technical Approach. Marginal levels of overall Technical Approach could indicate a lack of understanding concerning mission requirements and may result in the entire proposal receiving an unfavorable rating and/or being eliminated from the competitive range. The Government will evaluate the risk of Offeror’s unsuccessful contract performance for each of the items on this Sub-Factor. The evaluation will focus on the offerors’:

1. 1.3.a. System Availability. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed approach to meet the TADSS availability (Ao=95%) and contracted mission requirements. (PWS 3.5.1)

1. 1.3.b. Configuration Management. The Government will evaluate the Offeror's approach for maintaining technical documentation, configuration management (hardware and software), and system status updates.

1. 1.3.c. New Site Activation. The Government will evaluate the Offeror's process for activating new training sites.

1. 1.3.d. Cybersecurity. The Government will evaluate the Offeror's process for obtaining and maintaining an Authorization to Operate (ATO) and Authorization to Connect (ATC) for TADSS devices and support equipment.

1. 1.3.e. Supply Chain. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to provide effective solutions to forecast, identify, monitor, and resolve deficiencies due to supply chain challenges, Diminishing Manufacturing Sources (DMS), obsolescence, material shortage issues and systemic problems within the current TADSS.

In accordance with the Army Source Selection Supplement (AS3), Section 3.1, the Army methodology for evaluating Technical Approach and Related Risk is the Combined Technical/Risk Rating, (see Table 1 below). This methodology considers risk, in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings.

TABLE 1 – COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

3. Past Performance Factor. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s record of past and current performance to ascertain the probability of successfully performing the required efforts of the PWS.

a. Evaluation of past performance shall be in accordance with this plan utilizing the forms and questionnaires set forth in Appendix D.

b. The Government will focus its inquiries on the offeror’s (and major subcontractor’s) record of performance as it relates to all solicitation requirements, including cost, schedule, performance, management of subcontractors and compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, and FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan. For the purposes of this SSP/Requirement, major subcontractors are defined as members of an offeror’s overall team who are expected to perform twenty-seven percent (27%) or more of the proposed effort. A significant achievement, problem, or lack of relevant data in any element of the work can become an important consideration in the evaluation process. Therefore, offerors will be reminded to include the most recent and relevant efforts (within the past three years) in their proposal. Absent any recent and relevant past performance history or when the performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror will be assigned a “neutral confidence rating” and its proposal will not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably on past performance. The Government may use data provided by the offeror in its proposal and data obtained from other sources, including data in Government files or data obtained through interviews with personnel familiar with the contractor and their current and past performance under Federal, State or Local government or commercial contracts for same or similar services as compared to the NAICS 541330 Exception 01.

c. Offerors shall submit all Government and/or commercial contracts for the prime offeror and each major subcontractor in performance or awarded during the past three (3) years, from the issue date of this RFP, which are relevant to the efforts required by this RFP. The Government may consider a wide array of information from a variety of sources but is not compelled to rely on all of the information available.

d. The past performance factor considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract requirements. There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy, and quality.

1. RECENCY: The first aspect is to evaluate the recency of the offeror’s past performance. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant and is critical to establishing the relevancy of past performance information.

1. RELEVANCY: The second aspect is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. Relevancy is not separately rated; however, the following criteria (see Table 2) will be used to establish what is relevant which shall include similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming.

Table 2 - Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

1. QUALITY ASSESSMENT: The third aspect assesses the overall quality of the offeror’s past performance. Documented results from Past Performance Questionnaires, interviews, CPARS, and other sources form the support and basis for this assessment.

e. Performance Confidence Assessment: Utilize the Performance Confidence Assessment (see Table 3 below) to select the most appropriate confidence level for each Offeror. Ensure the rationale for the conclusions reached are included.

TABLE 3 - Performance Confidence Assessments

4. Cost/Price Factor. Adjectival ratings shall not be used for offerors’ Cost/Price proposals. The Government will fully evaluate and negotiate all priced Contract Line-Item Numbers (CLINs) for award. For award purposes, the total proposed price for all CLINs will be added together into a total sum (contract value). The evaluation of all option CLINs will not obligate the Government to exercise any option. The Offeror’s Cost/Price proposal will be evaluated as follows.

a. Cost Reimbursable Evaluation: A cost realism analysis will be performed on the cost-reimbursement CLINs to determine whether specific estimated proposed cost elements are realistic for the work to be performed; reflect a clear understanding of the contract requirements; and are consistent with the unique methods of performance described in the Offeror’s Technical proposal. The realism analysis will also be used to evaluate the offeror’s understanding of contract technical requirements and the risk associated with the Offeror’s Technical proposal. Therefore, the Offeror is advised to clearly show justification for unique practices that significantly lower costs. The offeror’s cost-reimbursement proposal and estimates will be traced from the Cost/Price proposal volume basis of estimates to the performance of the requirements addressed in the technical proposal. The Government will perform an evaluation of the technical elements contained within the Offeror’s Cost/Price proposal to perform the PWS. The findings of this evaluation will be incorporated into the cost realism evaluation.

The results of the cost realism evaluation will determine the probable cost of performance as it relates to the technical approach proposed by each offeror and will be utilized in the selection of the offer that provides the best value to the Government. As part of the realism analysis, the Government will calculate an evaluated cost by adjusting each offeror’s proposed cost to reflect any additions or reductions in cost elements to realistic levels based on the results of the cost realism analysis. The evaluated cost may differ from the proposed cost and will reflect the Government’s best estimate of the cost that is most likely to result from the Offeror’s proposal. If the total evaluated cost is higher than the proposed, the evaluated becomes the probable cost. If the total evaluated cost is lower than the proposed, the proposed becomes the probable cost.

b. FFP Evaluation. For a price to be fair and reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. The Offeror’s proposed fixed-price CLINs may be evaluated, using one or more of the techniques described in FAR 15.404-1 in order to determine if they are fair and reasonable.

c. Overall Cost/Price Proposal Evaluation: The overall Cost/Price proposal will be evaluated for the following:

1) Compliance: The Cost/Price proposal submitted by the Offeror will be evaluated for compliance based upon the submission requirements contained in the Section L-X Cost/Price instructions.

2) Unbalanced Pricing: The Offeror’s overall Cost/Price proposal will be evaluated for unbalanced pricing as defined in FAR 15.404-1(g). An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government (see FAR 15.404-1(g)(1) through FAR 15.404-1(g)(3)).

3) Errors: The Offeror’s Cost/Price proposal will be reviewed for errors. The Offeror may be given an opportunity to clarify certain aspects of their proposal at the sole discretion of the Contracting Officer.

4) Business Systems: The Government will verify the adequacy of the Offeror’s business systems.

5) Total Evaluated Price: The Total Evaluated Price consists of summing the Offeror’s proposed fixed-price (specify the fixed-price contract type applicable to the effort, e.g., “FFP”, “FPIF” etc.) CLIN prices (CLIN XXXX and CLIN XXXX) and the probable cost amount for the cost-reimbursement (specify cost-reimbursement contract type applicable to the effort, e.g., “CPFF”, “CPIF”, “Cost (no fee)”, etc.) CLINs (CLIN XXXX, CLIN XXXX).

The Total Evaluated Price will only include the proposed cost last option (Option Year 4) for the Transition-Out CLINs.

5. Small Business Participation Factor. IAW Defense FAR Supplement (DFARS) 215.304(c)(i), the extent to which offeror’s identify and commit to small business performance of the contract shall be evaluated. Offerors shall submit a Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD) which specifies the offeror’s level and degree of commitment to small business utilization/participation in performance of this requirement. An SBPCD is required from all offerors, including companies with commercial plans and comprehensive subcontracting plans. The Government will evaluate the following:

a) The extent, complexity, variety, and realism of the work small firms are to perform

b) The extent of commitment to use such firms (for example, enforceable commitments are to be weighted more heavily than non-enforceable ones)

All prime offerors, including small businesses, submitting a proposal are required to meet or exceed the Minimum Quantitative Requirement(s) (MQRs) [Use a minimum quantitative requirement for small business only and/or the socioeconomic categories only if it makes sense to do so for the requirement] relative to the total contract value as follows:

Small Business (SB) _____%

Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) _____%

Women Owned Small Business (WOSB) ____%

HUBZone-Certified Small Business (HUBZone) ____%

Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB) ____%

Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) ____%

For purposes of this requirement, total contract value is defined as the cumulative value of task order awards received that have opportunities to utilize small business concerns throughout the life of the contract). Small business prime offerors may achieve small business participation (meet or exceed MQR) through their own performance/participation as a prime and also through subcontracting to other small businesses. All offerors are required to submit Small Business Participation Commitment Documents in accordance with the instructions in Section L. Small business participation commitments will become requirements and be incorporated into the resulting contract.

The contractor shall report actual achievement of small business participation results on a (state whether reporting will be monthly, quarterly, etc.) basis and shall discuss performance in achieving the small business commitments/requirements.

Small business utilization metrics/performance requirements are specified in the Performance Requirements Summary of the Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan.

TABLE 4 – Small Business Ratings

E. DISCUSSIONS

1. GENERAL INFORMATION. In accordance with FAR 15.306(d), discussion sessions with each offeror may be held. Should discussions take place, all offerors in the competitive range will be allowed a minimum of 14 calendar days to submit Final Proposal Revisions.

2. DISCUSSION SCHEDULING. If discussions are conducted, the Contracting Officer will schedule the discussion sessions, and each offeror will be notified of the time and place at least 10 business days prior to their discussion session. Appropriate security clearances should be provided by the offerors in sufficient time to process the requests. The Contracting Officer will provide additional instructions with the notification. The discussion sessions will take place at a facility of the Government’s choosing in the Orlando, FL area.