Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award.docx

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104

PCCSP

HC108422R0006

Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award

SECTION M: EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1.0 SOURCE SELECTION

M.1.1 General

M.1.1.1 Solicitation Requirements, Terms, and Conditions Offerors are required to address all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical/management requirements, in addition to those identified as factors or subfactors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being ineligible for award.

M.1.1.2 Basis for Contract Award This is a best value trade-off source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and the DISA Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DARS). These regulations are available electronically at http://www.ditco.disa.mil/hq/aqinfo.asp and http://acquisition.gov/dfars. The Government will select the best overall offeror, based on integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below.

M.1.1.3 Evaluation The technical proposal should include all information regarding the offeror's ability to perform all required tasks and conform to all required terms and conditions. The best value determination will be based on the stated evaluation factors.

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions or seek clarifications if the Contracting Officer (KO) determines they are necessary. In the event issues pertaining to a proposed contract cannot be resolved to the KO’s satisfaction, the Government reserves the right to withdraw and cancel the proposed contract. In such event, offerors will be notified in writing. In the event a competitive range is established, and the KO 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 KO may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition.

M.1.1.4 Evaluation of Options The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price of the base period and all option periods, including option pricing for an additional six-month period that may be authorized IAW FAR 52.217-8. See FAR 52.217-8, which authorizes the Government to require continued performance of any services within the limits and at the rates specified in the contract. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

The offeror shall propose unit prices for the five-year base period, the five, 1-year options, and the six months for the extension of services available via FAR clause 52.217-8, “Option to Extend Services”. All unit prices will be entered into the provided pricing spreadsheets at Section J, Exhibit B-1, PCSSP Price Model. These prices shall be equal to the proposed pricing in the last six months prior to expiration of the base period, or the last six-months of the last exercised option period, if option periods are present. The total evaluated price will consist of the contractor’s proposed price for the base period, all option periods, the option pricing for the additional six-month period.

M.1.1.5 Number of Contracts to be Awarded The Government intends to award one, single-award indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract for Processor Capacity Services System P (PCSSP) Chipset; however, the Government reserves the right to make no award at all.

M.1.1.6 Rejection of Offers The Government may reject any proposal that takes exception to the terms of the solicitation.

M.1.1.7 Clarifications and Communications Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal. Communication conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions and the KO reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.

M.1.1.8 Notice of Award A written notice of award or acceptance of a proposal 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.

M.1.1.9 Competitive Advantage from Use of Government Furnished Property (GFP) The Government will eliminate any competitive advantage resulting from offeror’s proposed use of GFP as there will be no GFP offered from the existing processor contracts for use under award of this procurement.

M.2.0 EVALUATION FACTORS

M.2.1 Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

(1) The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal: Award will be made to the offeror proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below:

Factor 1: Technical/Management (Technical/Management Rating)

Subfactor 1: Technical Solution: System P Subfactor 2: Transition Plan Subfactor 3: Capacity Subfactor 4: Integration/Interfaces Subfactor 5: Performance/Availability Subfactor 6: Technical Requirements and Architecture

Factor 2: Cost/Price Factor 3: Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) Plan (Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating) Factor 4: Small Business Participation Factor (Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating)

(2) Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors. The relative importance of each factor and subfactor is as follows:

The Technical/Management Factor, including all subfactors, is significantly more important than Supply Chain Risk Management and Small Business Participation Factors. Within the Technical/Management Factor, Subfactors 1 and 2 are of equal importance. Subfactors 3 through 6 will be evaluated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis, to determine whether offeror proposals meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation. In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), all evaluation factors, when combined, other than cost/price, are significantly more important than cost/price.

M.2.1 Factor 1 - Technical/Management Factor.

M.2.1.1 Technical/Management Rating The Government will evaluate the technical/management solution documentation in the offeror’s proposal against the evaluation criteria below.

The technical/management evaluation provides for two distinct, but related assessments: the technical/management rating and the technical/management risk rating.

(1) Technical/Management Rating. The technical/management rating represents the government’s assessment of the offeror’s capability to satisfy the Government’s technical processor requirements. Each technical/management subfactor will receive one of the color ratings described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, Technical Ratings, excerpted on Table M.2 below.

The technical ratings focus on the strengths, deficiencies, and uncertainties of the offeror's proposal. The color rating depicts how well the offeror’s proposal meets the technical/management subfactor requirements. Subfactor ratings shall not be rolled up into an overall color rating for the technical/management factor.

Table M.2. Technical/Management Ratings

(2) Technical/Management Risk Rating. The Technical/Management Risk evaluation focuses on the weaknesses or significant weaknesses associated with an offeror's proposed approach and includes an assessment of the potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

The technical/management subfactors will receive one of the risk ratings described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, Technical Risk Ratings, excerpted in Table M.3 below. The technical risk ratings focus on the risks, i.e., weaknesses and significant weaknesses, of the offeror’s proposed approach to each of the technical/management subfactors.

Table M.3. Technical Risk Ratings

Definitions: The following ratings terminology is applicable for Tables M.2 and M.3:

Strength - is an aspect of an offeror's proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

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

Significant Weakness - means 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.

Uncertainty - is a doubt regarding whether an aspect of the proposal meets a material performance or capability requirement. It requires additional information from the offeror to further explain the proposal before the evaluator can complete his/her review and analysis and if the proposal remains in the competitive range, it should generate the issuance of an Evaluation Notice (EN).

The ratings terminologies focus on the strengths, deficiencies, uncertainties, and weaknesses of the offeror's proposal.

(3) The proposals shall be evaluated against the following subfactors identified below. Subfactor ratings will not be rolled up into an overall color rating for the Technical/Management factor:

The proposals shall be evaluated against the requirements listed within the following subfactors as part of the best value trade-off decision:

Subfactor 1: Technical Solution: System P. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s ability to provide a management infrastructure solution to include the following: provisioning capabilities, hardware diagnostics, hardware monitoring, event logging, image repositories and additional back-office processes that deliver processor capabilities. (Reference: PWS 6.1.1.2 and 6.1.2)

Subfactor 2: Transition Plan. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s ability to conduct a service transition plan to include the following: change management; service asset and configuration management; release and deployment management (timeline); service validation and testing; transition of all edge locations to the proposed contractor’s solutions, achieving full operating status; change evaluation and knowledge management. (Reference: PWS 6.11.1)

(4) Acceptable/Unacceptable ratings for Technical Subfactors 3-6 will be based on the following definitions:

Table M.4 Technical/Management Ratings

The proposals shall be evaluated against the requirements within the following subfactors on an “acceptable” or “unacceptable” basis as described in Table M.4.

Subfactor 3: Capacity. In order to be Acceptable, an offeror must demonstrate its ability to provide processing capacity for required workloads that includes: Central Processing Units (CPU), memory utilization, network interfaces (e.g., network interface cards (NIC), etc.). (Reference: PWS 6.3.1 – 6.3.2)

Subfactor 4: Integration/Interfaces. In order to be Acceptable, an offeror must demonstrate its ability to provide infrastructure components including network, storage, and Internet Protocol (IPv6) standards. (Reference: PWS 6.4.3-6.4.4, 6.4.6)

Subfactor 5: Performance/Availability. In order to be Acceptable, an offeror must demonstrate its ability to provide scalable processor capacity services utilizing an on-demand service approach that will readily adjust to changes in delivery. The offeror’s approach must ensure 24x7x365 problem escalation/resolution support and 99.95% availability per orderable system with options to deliver 99.999% availability per orderable system. (Reference: PWS 6.2.2 and 6.2.5.2)

Subfactor 6: Technical Requirements and Architecture. In order to be Acceptable, an offeror must demonstrate its ability to provide capacity and architecture solutions including CPU Capacity/Type, Memory Capacity (Disk I/O connections required, and LAN connections required) – Operating Chipset Architecture/Operation System. (Reference: PWS Appendix 1)

(5) Proof of Concept (POC) Demonstration.

The Government reserves the right to require a POC demonstration. A POC demonstration will be required if the Contracting Officer determines it is in the Government’s best interest. If a proof-of-concept demonstration is required, ALL offerors in the competitive range will be required to demonstrate their proposed solution to members of the Source Selection Evaluation Team at the offeror's own demonstration location and at the offeror's own expense.

The POC demonstration is designed to validate Subfactors 1 and 2 of the offeror's technical solution. Specific elements of Subfactors 1 and 2 to be validated will be determined by the Government and provided to offerors as part of a detailed test plan. Offerors will be notified if they are in the competitive range and if a POC is required. If an offeror receives such a notification, then the first POC demonstration will occur within 30 calendar days. A detailed test plan and any Government-provided data required to be used in the demonstration will be provided to each offeror 14 calendar days prior to the demonstration. Offerors will be given one day to present their solution.

The POC will be rated separately as either acceptable or unacceptable (see Table M.5 below).

Table M.5 Proof of Concept Ratings

M.2.3 Factor 2 - Cost/Price Factor.

M.2.3.1 The offeror’s fixed price proposal will be evaluated for award purposes based upon the total evaluated price for the five-year base period, the five, 1-year option periods; and the 6-month option to extend IAW FAR 52.217-8. The CLIN/SLIN pricing for the 6-month option to extend shall be equal to the proposed pricing in the last six-months of the last option period

For evaluation purposes, the total evaluated price of the base contract will be calculated based upon the proposed monthly unit pricing and any provided Government plug numbers found in the “BTable Tab” of Exhibit B-1, PCSSP Price Model for all the Government-provided CLINs/SLINs in each period. Unit pricing provided in the “BTable Tab” will populate into the “Evaluation Quantities” tab. The provided unit prices will be multiplied by the Government-provided evaluation quantities (as detailed in the Exhibit B-1, PCSSP Price Model).

The Government-provided quantities specified in the Exhibit B-1, PCSSP Price Model are estimates only, and they shall not obligate the Government to exercise. Unit pricing for all Government-provided CLINs/SLINs will be included in the contract award. Evaluation of the options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated, using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404, to determine if it is reasonable and complete. Normally, price reasonableness is established through cost and price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404. For a price to be complete, all solicitation requirements must be priced, figures correctly calculated and prices presented in a clear and useful format. If a CLIN is proposed at $0.00, the Government may order that CLIN for $0.00, at no cost to the Government. The Government will consider a SLIN with proposed price of $0.00 as complete. The Government will consider a CLIN that is left blank and does not include a price as incomplete. In addition, offeror-generated abbreviations such as not separately priced (“NSP”), not applicable (“N/A”), and no charge (“N/C”) are not acceptable entries, and the price proposal will be considered incomplete. Incomplete proposals will be ineligible for award.

The Government reserves the right, but is not obligated, to perform a price realism analysis. Additionally, unbalanced pricing poses an unacceptable risk to the Government and may be a reason to reject an offeror’s proposal.

It is anticipated that pricing will be based on adequate price competition; therefore, offerors are not required to submit certified cost or pricing data. However, data other than cost or pricing data may be required to support price reasonableness in accordance with FAR 15.403-1(b) and 15.403-3(a).

Travel/Other Direct Costs (ODC): Due to the probable inability of any offeror to accurately estimate travel, material/equipment purchases, etc. associated with this requirement, the Government is providing plug numbers, inclusive of all direct costs and indirect rate burdens, to be used by all Offerors when proposing Travel and ODCs. The Government will verify plug numbers are utilized as directed and amounts appropriately included in proposed pricing. Plug numbers are provided in Exhibit B-1, PCSSP Price Model. Travel shall be authorized by the Contracting Officer Representative (COR) in writing prior to performance and will be paid IAW FAR Part 31.205-46. No profit or fee will be authorized for travel. Applicable burdens, e.g., G&A, may apply to travel IAW the contractor’s accounting practices.

Base Year 1: $1,000 Base Year 2: $1,000 Base Year 3: $1,000 Base Year 4: $1,000 Base Year 5: $1,000

Option Year 1: $1,000 Option Year 2: $1,000 Option Year 3: $1,000 Option Year 4: $1,000 Option Year 5: $1,000 6-Month Option: $500

M.2.4 Factor 3 - Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) Plan.

The Government's review of the offeror's SCRM Plan will be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis. In order to be acceptable, an offeror shall demonstrate that they have visibility into their supply chain for critical components, understands the risks to that supply chain, and has implemented or plans to implement risk mitigations to counter those risks. In addition, the offeror shall plan for and implement countermeasures which mitigate threats and system vulnerabilities, including:

a. The application of supply chain risk management best practices applied as appropriate to the development of the system. Supply chain risk management key practices may be found in the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Interagency Report 7622, Piloting Supply Chain Risk Management for Federal Information Systems, and the National Defense Industrial Association Guidebook, Engineering for System Assurance, both publicly available.

b. The enumeration of potential suppliers of critical components, as they are identified, including cost, schedule, and performance information relevant for choice among alternates and planned selection for the purpose of engaging with the government to develop mutually agreeable risk management plans for the suppliers to be solicited.

c. The processes to control access by foreign nationals to program information, including, but not limited to, system design information, DoD-unique technology, and software or hardware used to integrate commercial technology.

d. The processes and practices employed to ensure that genuine hardware, software, and logic elements will be employed in the solution and that processes and requirements for genuine components are levied upon subcontractors.

e. The process used to protect unclassified DoD information in the development environment.

TABLE M.6 SCRM PLAN RATINGS

M.2.5 Factor 4 - Small Business Participation Factor.

The Government will evaluate the Offerors’ submissions to this factor for acceptability of the proposed Small Business Participation Plan. To be acceptable, the Offeror shall

1. Provide a complete and responsive small business participation plan listed in the template.

2. The plan must show consideration for all federally designated small business categories and must meet the minimums listed in Section L.

a. If the Offeror does not meet or exceed all minimum objectives provided, the Offeror shall:

(i) Provide a detailed explanation of why the Offeror does not meet the small business participation minimum objectives listed within section L

(ii) Provide a detailed explanation of why the Offeror cannot meet the minimum objectives

(iii) Describe what the Offeror has done to try to meet the minimum objectives

(iv) Respond to why the Government should accept their plan.

b. If the Offeror submits zero percentages in any category, the Offeror shall Provide a detailed explanation to address how the Offeror will achieve small business participation where zero percentages are presented.

These explanations must be reasonable, and the determination of an acceptable response will be determined by the Government.

The Government will use the following ratings for the utilization of Small Business Participation:

Table M.7. SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION RATINGS