Section M-Evaluation Method_Draft_SOC_E_17_Mar_21.pdf

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

FOR

SQUADRON OPERATIONS CENTER ENTERPRISE MULTIPLE

AWARD IDIQ ACQUISITION

17 March 2021

1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION

1.1 Basis of Contract Award. This is a best value source selection conducted in accordance with Federal

Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3 as supplemented. FAR 15.101 states that best value is obtained by using any one or a combination of source selection approaches. In this procurement, the Government will select the best overall offers that, based upon the results of an integrated assessment of the proposals, offer the Government a combination of the Highest Technically Rated (HTR) Past Experience ratings and the highest Past Performance confidence ratings. Although this source selection includes an integrated assessment, between Past Experience and Past Performance, the evaluation methodology is not a Tradeoff as the Government will not evaluate Cost/Price. For the integrated assessment, Past Performance is determined to be slightly more important than Past Experience. This may result in an award being made to an Offeror with a lower Past Experience score, but higher Past Performance rating.

1.1.1 Contracts may be awarded to the Offerors who are deemed qualified. In order to be considered qualified, the Government must determine (1) an Offeror to be responsible in accordance with FAR 9.104-1; (2) the Offeror’s proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation); and, (3) based on the evaluation factors, the Offeror’s proposal represents the best value to the Government.

1.1.1.1 The five Offerors with a combination of the HTR Past Experience ratings and the highest Past

Performance confidence ratings will represent the best value to the Government. In the event of an unbreakable tie the Government will follow the procedures in para. 4.1.

1.1.2 The Source Selection Authority (SSA) will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of all source selection evaluation criteria (described below). While the Government source selection evaluation team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

1.2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded. For the purpose of establishing the Indefinite Delivery

Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ), the Government contemplates awarding approximately five contracts. The number of contracts awarded is within the sole discretion of the Government.

The Government reserves the right to exercise “on-ramps” as described in Section H of this solicitation to award additional contracts at any point within the ordering period. In the event that the Government elects to exercise “on-ramps” the Government may exceed the number of contracts contemplated above.

1.3 IDIQ Ceiling. The overall ceiling of the IDIQ is estimated at $750M for eight years. The total value of all task orders awarded under the IDIQ will not exceed this amount. Funding will be determined at the individual task order level.

1.4 Minimum Guaranteed Task Order. A Post-Award Conference will be awarded to each IDIQ awardee. The task order for the Post-Award Conference is $10,000.00 and will satisfy the minimum order requirement. A Contractor that is awarded an IDIQ contract is not guaranteed any task order beyond the Post-Award Conference. The Cost/Price of the Post-Award Conference will not be evaluated.

1.5 Proposals Substantiation. Unsubstantiated and/or misleading claims, for even a single Past Experience evaluation criterion, could result in the Government determining that the Offeror’s proposed self-score is disingenuous and/or artificially inflated and the Offeror’s entire proposal would be unqualified and unawardable.

1.6 Discussions. The Governments intends to issue the award without discussions. The Government will not enter into discussions on Past Experience. If the Government has questions pertaining to Past Performance (e.g. adverse findings), the Government may request clarifications in accordance with FAR 15.306(a)(2). Clarifications may be provided in the form of an Evaluation Notices (ENs).

Offeror will be notified of their Past Experience ranking, Past Performance Confidence Rating, and the award decision once the final award decision is made.

2.0 RESPONSIVENESS AND RESPONSIBILITY

2.1 Responsiveness. Offerors shall meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and other instructions identified within the solicitation. Offerors shall comply with content required within each of the proposal volumes and sections. Failure to comply with any requirement of the solicitation may result in the Offeror being non-responsive and ineligible for award.

The Government will review the proposal documentation to ensure all required documentation was provided in response to the solicitation. The Government will rely on the provided documentation to facilitate the Contracting Officer’s determination of Contractor responsiveness.

2.2 Responsibility. No award shall be made to an Offeror unless the Contracting Officer determines them to be responsible. To be determined responsible, an Offeror shall meet the general standards described in FAR 9.104-1. The Contracting Officer may consider information provided within any volume of the proposal when making the determination of responsibility.

2.3 Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI). Organizational Conflict of Interest issues are treated in a manner similar to responsibility determinations. An Offeror’s actual or potential OCI concerns must be avoided, mitigated, or neutralized before that Offeror may receive an award of this contract.

3.0 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY AND FACTORS

3.1 Evaluation Methodology. The Government will utilize a Highest Technically Rated Offeror (HTRO) methodology. The HTRO method requires the Offeror to self-score based on the objective criteria described in Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors or Respondents (ITO).

For evaluation purposes only, the Government will establish two pools: (1) for small business and (1) for 8(a) firms to evaluate past experience and past performance.

The Offerors’ proposals will be ranked based on initial self-scoring. Within each respective pool, Offerors’ proposals will be ranked based on initial self-scoring. If an Offeror fails to submit Appendix D (Scoring Matrix) and/or Appendix E (Cross Reference Matrix) the Offeror’s entire proposal would be unqualified and unawardable. The Government will sort all proposals from the highest self-rated Offeror to the lowest self-rated Offeror, for each pool.

Small Business Pool. For the small business pool, the Government will validate the five (5) highest proposed Past Experience self-scores. If an Offeror’s self-score is downward adjusted as a result of

Government validation, and the Offeror is no longer among the top five (5) highest rated Offerors, then the Government will validate the next highest self-rated Offeror, until a total of five (5) Offerors with the highest Government-validated scores remain.

The Government will validate the top rated self-scores, as described in Section 4.1 below. The Government will then assess the Past Performance of the Offerors with the five highest Government-validated scores. The Past Performance evaluation will be conducted in four phases: recency assessment, relevancy assessment, performance quality assessment, and the performance confidence assessment. The Government will assign a single Past Performance confidence rating to the Offerors with the five highest Government-validated scores.

The five (5) Offerors will then be grouped by their Past Performance confidence rating (e.g., Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Neutral etc.). Within each confidence rating group, the Government will sort Offerors from highest Government-validated score to the lowest Government-validated score. The Government will first select the Offerors with the top three (3) HTR Past Experience ratings who are within the substantial confidence rating group. If at least three Offerors do not have a substantial confidence ratings, the remaining awardees will be the Offerors with the HTR Past Experience ratings who are within the satisfactory confidence rating group. Lastly, the Government may issue the remaining awards to the Offerors with the HTR Past Experience ratings who are within the neutral confidence rating group. Offerors with limited confidence ratings or no confidence ratings will not receive an award.

8(a) Pool. For the 8(a) pool, the Government will validate the four (4) highest proposed Past Experience self-scores. If an Offeror’s self-score is downward adjusted as a result of Government validation, and the Offeror is no longer among the top four (4) highest rated Offerors, then the Government will validate the next highest self-rated Offeror, until a total of four (4) Offerors with the highest Government-validated scores remain.

The Government will validate the top rated self-scores, as described in Section 4.1 below. The Government will then assess the Past Performance of the Offerors with the four highest Government-validated scores. The Past Performance evaluation will be conducted in four phases: recency assessment, relevancy assessment, performance quality assessment, and the performance confidence assessment. The Government will assign a single Past Performance confidence rating to the Offerors with the five highest Government-validated scores.

The four (4) Offerors will then be grouped by their Past Performance confidence rating (e.g.

Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Neutral etc.). Within each confidence rating group, the Government will sort Offerors from highest Government-validated score to the lowest Government-validated score. The Government will first select the Offerors with the top two (2) HTR Past Experience ratings who are within the substantial confidence rating group. If at least two (2) Offerors do not have a substantial confidence ratings, the remaining awardees will be the Offerors with the HTR Past Experience ratings who are within the satisfactory confidence rating group. Lastly, the Government may issue the remaining awards to the Offerors with the HTR Past Experience ratings who are within the neutral confidence rating group. Offerors with limited confidence ratings or no confidence ratings will not receive an award.

In the event the Government is unable to achieve the target number of proposals to review, five (5) for the small business pool and three (3) for the 8(a) pool, the Government reserves the right to adjust those target numbers to ensure (1) adequate competition and (2) potential awardees represent the best value, as defined in section 1.1.1.1.

3.2 Evaluation Factors. The following evaluation factors a will be used to evaluate each proposal:

Factor 1: Past Experience Factor 2: Past Performance

In accordance with 10 U.S.C. 2305(a)(3)(C)(i), Cost/Price will not be evaluated during this source selection; Cost/Price will be evaluated for each individual task order.

4.0 Factor 1 – Past Experience.

4.1 Past Experience Evaluation. The Offerors proposals will be ranked based on initial self-scoring.

The Government will sort all proposals from the highest self-rated Offeror to the lowest self-rated Offeror. The Government will validate the highest proposed self-scores IAW Section 3.1. Offeror’s self-scores will be validated using the work samples provided. The Government will review the section of the work sample that is listed within the Cross Reference Matrix (Appendix E). If the substantiating information cannot be found within the referenced page, paragraph, table, etc. the Government will not search for the substantiating information. If the Offerors score cannot be validated based on the work samples and Cross Reference Matrix, the Government will unilaterally downward adjust the score, potentially all the way down to zero (0) points. The Government will ONLY adjust the Offeror’s self-score downward, not upward. As stated in 1.6, the Government will not enter into discussions; therefore, the Government will not hold discussions with the Offeror to communicate downward adjustments. Adjustments are within the sole discretion of the Government.

Once the Government has validated self-scores, validated scores will then be multiplied by the respective weighted amounts identified in Appendix D.

4.2 Ties and Tie-Breakers.

4.2.1 Small Business Pool. After validation of the top five (5) rated self-scores, the Government will view the proposed self-score of the 6th top rated Offeror. If the proposed self-score of the 6th top rated Offeror is tied with the 5th top rated Government-validated score, then the Government will validate the proposed self-score of the 6th top rated Offeror. In the event of a tie, the Government will utilize the following tie-breaker process(es).

4.2.1.1 The Government will consider the total number of Mission Critical SOC-E task areas supported as Prime at a single point in time. The Government will use the calendar date identified by the Offeror as required in SOC-E task areas specifically listed in ITO paragraph 2.4.2.5. For tie breaking purposes only, Offerors may receive extra points for each Mission Critical SOC-E task area that is reflected on multiple work samples. The Government will select the Offeror with the highest total number of mission critical SOC-E task areas supported as Prime at a single point in time.

If a tie exists after the tie breaker, the Government reserves the right to exclude or retain each of the tied Offerors. The decision is to exclude or include both Offerors is the sole discretion of the Government.

4.2.2 8(a) Pool. After validation of the top four (4) rated self-scores, the Government will view the proposed self-score of the 5th top rated Offeror. If the proposed self-score of the 5th top rated Offeror is tied with the 4th top rated Government-validated score, then the Government will validate the proposed self-score of the 5th top rated Offeror. In the event of a tie, the Government will utilize the following tie-breaker process(es).

4.2.2.1 The Government will consider the total number of Mission Critical SOC-E task areas supported as Prime at a single point in time. The Government will use the calendar date identified by the Offeror as required in SOC-E task areas specifically listed in ITO paragraph 2.4.2.5. For tie breaking purposes only, Offerors may receive extra points for each Mission Critical SOC-E task area that is reflected on multiple work samples. The Government will select the Offeror with the highest total number of mission critical SOC-E task areas supported as Prime at a single point in time.

If a tie exists after the tie breaker, the Government reserves the right to exclude or retain each of the tied Offerors. The decision is to exclude or include both Offerors is the sole discretion of the Government.

5.0 Factor 2 – Past Performance.

5.1 Past Performance Evaluation. The Government will assess the Past Performance of the Offerors with the highest Government-validated scores from each respective pool. Past Performance will be assessed for each work sample provided in support of the Past Experience rating. The Past Performance evaluation will be conducted in four phases: recency assessment, relevancy assessment, performance quality assessment, and the performance confidence assessment.

5.2 Recency Assessment. In the first phase, the Government will assess whether Past Performance information is recent. The Government will perform an independent determination of recency of the data provide or obtained. Past Performance information will either be determined “Recent” or “Not Recent.” In accordance with ITO Section 2.4.1.2, in order for the Past Performance materials to be determined “Recent,” at least six months of performance shall have been within the last five years, as of the date on the RFP Letter.

5.3 Relevancy Assessment. In the second phase, the Government will assess whether Past Performance information relevant to the present source selection. The Government will perform an independent determination of relevancy of the data provide or obtained. Past Performance information will either be determined “Relevant” or “Not Relevant.” Work samples that were able to be validated during the Factor 1 Past Experience assessment will be considered “Relevant.” If the Government was unable to validate the work sample, the work sample will be considered “Not Relevant.”

5.4 Performance Quality Assessment. In the third phase, the Government will assess the quality of each recent and relevant work sample. The Government will consider information provided in the Past Performance Information Sheets, CPARS and PPQs. Pursuant to FAR 15.305(a)(2)(ii), the Government may also obtain and evaluate Past Performance information from other sources, including but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), or other databases; the Defense Contract Management Agency; and interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, interviews with Government customers. The Government will assign a rating to each recent and relevant work sample.

5.4.1 Adverse Findings. The performance quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings.

An “Adverse Finding” is defined as Past Performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. For adverse information identified, the performance quality assessment will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and whether corrective actions have been effective and resulted in sustained improvements. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated.

5.4.2 Performance Quality Ratings. The Government will assign a rating to each contract/task order that is rated both “Recent” and “Relevant.” The performance quality ratings are described in Table 1 below.

5.5 Past Performance Confidence Assessment. In the fourth phase, the Government will assign a single Past Performance confidence rating to the Offerors with the highest Government-validated scores within each pool. The Past Performance confidence rating is based on an integrated assessment of the Offeror’s overall quality of service for “Recent” and “Relevant” work provided by the Offeror or obtained by the Government.

5.5.1 Performance Confidence Ratings. The performance confidence ratings are described in Table 2 below.

Table 1- Performance Quality Assessments Rating

Adjectival Rating Description

Exceptional (E)

Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s (or customer’s) benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor were highly effective.

Satisfactory (S) Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the Contractor appear or were satisfactory.

Marginal (M)

Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the Contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The Contractor’s proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

Unsatisfactory (U)

Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains a problem(s) for which the Contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

Neutral (N) Performance was not observed or is not applicable to the current effort being reported.

Table 2- 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.

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.

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.