Section M_FINAL.docx

Version 1.6 July 2019

M - N68335-26-R-1010 EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD (SERVICES) (16 September 2025)

PART A: GENERAL INFORMATION

1.0 GENERAL

The Government intends to select more than one (1) offeror and award a Multiple Award Contract to each qualifying Offeror. A qualifying Offeror is an Offeror that is determined to be a responsible source, submits an acceptable proposal that conforms to the requirements of the solicitation, and the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) has no reason to believe that the offeror would be likely to offer other than fair and reasonable pricing. To be eligible for a TO/DO award, the Offeror must be a MAC awardee.

The Government will assign a Technical rating of “Acceptable” to a proposal that meets the requirements identified in Factor 1 - Technical. The Government will assign a Technical rating of “Unacceptable” to a proposal that does not meet the requirements identified in Factor 1 - Technical. Failure to address part or parts of the Technical factor caused by a lack of information may result in the Government assessing the proposal as Unacceptable. The Government may eliminate an Unacceptable proposal from the competition at any time during the evaluation process.

The Government will assign a Past Performance rating of “Acceptable” to a proposal that, based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the Offeror’s performance record is unknown. The Government will assign a Past Performance Rating of “Unacceptable” to a proposal that, based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort. Failure to address part or parts of the Past Performance factor may result in the Government assessing the proposal as Unacceptable. The Government may eliminate an Unacceptable proposal from the competition at any time during the evaluation process.

Only Offerors who receive a Technical and Past Performance Rating of “Acceptable” will be awarded an IDIQ contract and minimum guarantee.

Access to Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI)

(a) The technical data packages at the task order level contain CUI.

(b) Offerors must obtain access to the CUI drawing package in order to prepare a proposal.

(c) Access will be granted only to entities that demonstrate:

-Current and valid CMMC Level 2 self-assessment; and -Compliance with applicable safeguarding requirements; and -Valid DD Form 2345.

(d) To obtain DD2345 certification, contact Defense Logistics Information Service (DLIS) in Battle Creek, MI at (800) 352-3572 or visit the Internet at http://www.dlis.dla.mil/jcp. The certified DD Form 2345 and your written request shall be sent to, Kieran Connolly, Contract Specialist, via email, kieran.m.connolly2.civ@us.navy.mil

(d) The Government will verify CMMC status prior to releasing the CUI materials.

(e) Entities that do not obtain access to the CUI drawing package remain eligible to submit a proposal; however, proposals must comply with all solicitation requirements.

2.0 EVALUATION PROCESS

The Government intends to evaluate each proposal and award contract(s) without discussions to the responsible offeror(s), whose offer(s), conforming to the solicitation, meets the technical and past performance acceptability standards. Therefore, offerors are cautioned that their initial offer should contain the offeror’s best terms from a technical and past performance standpoint. However, if it is determined to be in the Government’s best interest, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions and request proposal revisions. At any time during proposal evaluation, the Government may establish a competitive range and begin discussions with one or more Offerors. If a competitive range is established, the Government may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals. Evaluation of an offeror’s proposal will be based on the information in the written proposal. The Government may use information other than that provided by the Offeror in its evaluation, including past performance information and results of questionnaires. If an Offeror submits an Acceptable initial proposal and the Government establishes a competitive range, the Government will: (1) inform the Offeror of the acceptability of its proposal and that the Offeror need not change its proposal and (2) request the Offeror to confirm its interest in receiving a MAC award.

Non-compliance with the terms, conditions, or requirements set forth in the solicitation may be considered a deficiency. The Government may consider any exception or deviation to any term or condition of the RFP that is not expressly authorized by the RFP to be a deficiency, as defined in FAR 15.001. Additionally, any approach that relies on Government resources or operations (e.g., Government Furnished Property, Government Furnished Equipment, Government personnel/actions, Government Concept of Operation changes, etc.) in order to comply with a requirement, unless otherwise allowed, may be considered a deficiency. A proposal assessed with a deficiency may make the offer ineligible for award.

3.0 EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Proposals will be evaluated using the factors (and any elements), listed below.

Proposals shall be evaluated using the factors of Technical and Past Performance.

All the elements must be addressed under the Technical Factor and will be evaluated as part of the Technical factor.

All the elements must be addressed under the factor of Past Performance and will be evaluated as part of the Past Performance factor.

NOTE: IN ACCORDANCE WITH 10 U.S.C § 3206(c), COST OR PRICE WILL NOT BE EVALUATED FOR THE IDIQ MAC. COST OR PRICE TO THE GOVERNMENT WILL BE EVALUATED AT THE TO/DO LEVEL.

TECHNICAL

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Technical Volume, specifically the Technical Elements listed within the technical volume:

I. Technical Factor

a. Technical Competency Element

b. Key Personnel Element

c. Approved Cost Accounting System Element

PAST PERFORMANCE

PART B: SPECIFIC INFORMATION

1.0 TECHNICAL

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Technical volume, specifically the Technical elements listed within the technical volume:

I. Technical Factor

a. Technical Competency Element

b. Key Personnel Element

c. Approved Cost Accounting System Element

1.1 Technical Competency- The Offeror demonstrated and provided documentation that they have an approved and valid NAVSEA Modernization Planning and Sustainability Office Acceptance Letter (Quality Management System Letter) (formerly NAVSEA 04XQ).

1.2 Key Personnel- The offeror’s list of key personnel meets all of the required education, certifications and experience requirements outlined in the Statement of Work and Section L.

1.3 Approved Accounting System- The offeror provided documentation that they have an approved Cost Accounting System and provided the Defense Contracting Audit Agency (DCAA) Branch Office for their company, with the name and phone number of the cognizant DCAA Point of Contact.

Offerors are required to be registered in SAM at the time an offer is submitted to comply with the annual representations and certifications requirements, in accordance with FAR 4.11 “System for Award Management.” Therefore, all Offerors shall confirm their active status in SAM. Offerors shall also confirm that no active exclusion records associated with Offeror’s UEID within SAM are present under the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System. Additionally, Offerors shall confirm that they have a current and valid NIST SP 800-171 assessment posted in Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS).

Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC)

Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC)

Compliance with the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) requirements, as outlined in DFARS 252.204-7025 and further detailed in Section L, is a material condition of award and will be determined as part of the Offeror's responsibility.

The Government will review the information provided in the Offeror's proposal, as requested in Section L, to ensure that it includes either:

1. A statement or documentation demonstrating a valid CMMC Level 2 Self-Assessment status.

2. If not currently certified at the time of proposal submission, the Offeror provided an explanation of the process that will be followed to ensure a valid CMMC Level 2 Self-Assessment certification is obtained prior to award.

For the apparently successful Offeror, the Government will verify that a valid CMMC Level 2 Self-Assessment has been achieved prior to contract award. This verification will be conducted through the Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS).

Failure to possess the required CMMC Level 2 Self-Assessment prior to contract award will render the Offeror ineligible for award, as it constitutes a failure to meet a material condition of award.

2.0 PAST PERFORMANCE

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Past Performance Volume, specifically the Past Performance Elements listed within the Past Performance volume:

II. Past Performance Factor

a. Recency Element

b. Relevancy (including context of data) Element

c. Quality Element

Each Offeror will be evaluated on its past performance based on recent and relevant contracts or subcontracts currently ongoing or completed within the last three (3) years of solicitation release date for similar efforts and performing requirements in accordance with NAVSEA Technical Specification 9090-310. Similarity of the service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type and degree of subcontracting/teaming may all be considered in the relevancy determination. Context of data will also be evaluated. The Government will focus on information that demonstrates quality of performance relative to size and complexity of the procurement under consideration and relevance of the performance to the requirements of the Performance Based Statement of Work (PBSOW) of the solicitation. Sources other than those identified by the Offeror may be contacted by the Government. Problems not addressed by the Offeror will be considered to still exist. The degree to which the Offeror can demonstrate that it has successfully resolved past performance problems will be evaluated. There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation:

· Recency of the past performance, which will only consider work performed within three (3) years of the solicitation release date in relation to the PBSOW being proposed to.

· Relevancy of the Past Performance, which will consider similarity of scope in terms of requirements within the PBSOW in relation to the effort being proposed to and performing requirements in accordance with NAVSEA Technical Specification 9090-310.

· Quality of the recent, relevant, past performance, which will focus on requirements, schedule, controlling cost, managing the effort, small business utilization, regulatory compliance, and the demonstrated systemic improvement actions taken to resolve past problems in relation to the statement of work being proposed.

A separate quality rating will not be assigned. However, the past performance rating will be based on the Offeror’s overall record of past performance taking into account the recency, relevancy, and quality of performance.

In the case that an Offeror has no recent/relevant performance record available or the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful Past Performance rating can be reasonably assigned the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance. The Offeror will receive a Neutral Past Performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered “Acceptable.”

PART C: EVALUATION RATING AND RISK ASSESSMENT DEFINITIONS

The definitions below will be used by the Government when assessing solicitation compliance and the expected results of the Offeror's proposed approach. Offerors are advised that during the evaluation process, a factor with an “Unacceptable” rating may result in the entire proposal being found unacceptable and eliminated from competition.

1.0 TECHNICAL EVALUATION RATINGS

Technical Ratings: The technical rating assignments reflect the Government’s assessment of the quality of the Offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirement.

2.0 PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION RATINGS

Past Performance Ratings: The Past Performance Rating assignments reflect the Government’s assessment of the Offeror’s Past Performance for meeting the Government’s requirement.

The past performance evaluation rating is an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The past performance evaluation rating considers the offeror demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements. In accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2), the recency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor’s performance shall be considered. These are combined to establish one performance rating for each offeror of Acceptable or Unacceptable.

2.1 PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION DEFINITIONS

Recency – is a measure of the time that has elapsed since the past performance reference occurred. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant.

Definitions of Recent and Not Recent are as follows:

Relevance – is a measure of the extent of similarity between the service/support effort, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and subcontract/teaming or other comparable attributes of past performance examples and the solicitation requirements; and a measure of the likelihood that the past performance is an indicator of future performance.

Definitions of Relevant and Not Relevant are as follows:

Quality of Products or Services - The third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to establish the overall quality of the offeror’s past performance. The past performance evaluation conducted in support of a current source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the offeror performed those past contracts. The Past Performance Evaluation Team will review all past performance information collected and determine the quality of the offeror’s performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate these into the performance assessment. A separate quality assessment rating is not required; rather, the past performance rating is based on the offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance.