Section M_v1_92123.docx

Section M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION

1.1 Basis for award.

The government anticipates awarding one, five (5) year, Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract resulting from this Request for Proposal (RFP) to the responsible Offeror who presents the best value to the government. The Government will evaluate and select the government validated Highest Technically Rated Offeror (HTRO) with a fair and reasonable price, realistic Professional Employee Compensation Plan (PECP), a Small Business Participation plan of at least 20 percent, and an acceptable past performance. The government will evaluate offers consistent with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.101-1 and 15.3 as supplemented by the DoD Source Selection Procedures referenced in Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) 215.300 and the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS) 5315.3 to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. The Government is not selecting the Lowest Priced Technically Acceptable proposal and will not conduct a Tradeoff. The Source Selection Authority will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation. The government reserves the right to make no award at all.

1.2 Proposal Substantiation. An Offeror’s submittal of unsubstantiated and/or misleading claims, for even a single Past Technical Experience evaluation criterion, could result in the Government determining that the Offeror’s proposed self-rated score is disingenuous and/or artificially inflated. If this were to occur, the Government would unilaterally downward adjust the Offeror’s score, potentially down to zero (0) points.

1.3 Contract Type. This acquisition will result in a hybrid contract with Cost plus Fixed Fee, Cost Reimbursement, and Firm Fixed Price CLINs.

1.4 Responsibility

A contract may be awarded to the offeror deemed responsible in accordance with FAR 9.104-1, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L– Instructions to Offerors of this solicitation), and is judged, based on the evaluation factors to represent the best value to the government.

1.5 Proposal Compliance. Offerors shall meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, technical requirements, 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 Government determining the Offeror to be non-compliant and ineligible for award.

The Government will rely on the documentation provided by the Offeror to facilitate the Contracting Officer’s determination of proposal compliance.

2.0 EVALUATION FACTORS AND RATING METHODOLOGY

The Government will use the following evaluation factors to evaluate Offerors’ proposals according to the methodology set forth in section 2.1:

Factor I: Small Business Participation Factor II: Technical Experience Factor III: Past Performance Factor IV: Cost/Price

2.1 EVALUATION FACTOR OVERVIEW

The Contracting Officer will ensure the offeror is compliant for a Facility Clearance, System Award Management (SAM), and in government Furnished Information (GFI) and International Traffic in Arms Regulation (ITAR). To be considered compliant for Facility Clearance, the Contracting Officer (CO) will validate each Prime Offerors Facility Clearance (FCL) via the Defense Information Security System (DISS). The CO will validate that the offeror is registered in SAM. The CO will ensure the offeror is registered and approved in ITAR.

If the Offeror does not meet the aforementioned criteria the Offeror will be deemed not responsible and eliminated from consideration for award and will not be evaluated further. The Offeror will receive written notice IAW FAR 15.503.

The government will evaluate proposals of the compliant offerors as follows:

The Government will utilize a Highest Technically Rated Offeror (HTRO) methodology. The HTRO method requires the Offeror to score itself on Volume II: Past Technical Experience, based on the criteria described in Section L Instructions to Offerors. The Government will rank all proposals based on Offerors’ self-rated scores for Technical Experience (Factor II), from the highest self-rated score to the lowest self-rated score.

Step 1:

The Government will identify and select the HTRO received and then move to Step 2.

Note: In the event multiple offerors have the same self-rated score the Government will proceed through steps 2 through 4 with all offerors having the highest self-rated score.

Step 2:

Government will validate the Small Business Participation Plan on an acceptable/unacceptable basis. Only the offeror deemed acceptable, will move to Step 3. Unacceptable offerors will be eliminated from further evaluation.

Note: If the HTRO’s SBPP is deemed unacceptable, the Government will return to Step 1.

Step 3:

The Government Technical Evaluation Team will validate the self-rated score of the HTRO for Technical Experience by reviewing the Staffing Plan. The offeror with the validated highest technical rated self-score will move to Step 4.

Note: If the HTRO’s self-rated score cannot be validated and is less than the next highest self-rated score the Government will return to Step 1 to then validate the new HTRO.

Step 4:

The Government Past Performance Team will validate Past Performance on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis. The offeror deemed acceptable, will move to Step 5. Unacceptable offerors will be eliminated from further evaluation.

Note: If the HTRO’s Past Performance is deemed unacceptable, the Government will return to Step 1.

Step 5:

In the event that multiple offerors have the same validated self-rated score the Government will use competition to evaluate price.

If only one offeror remains the Government will ensure cost/price is complete, balanced, reasonable, and realistic by using the cost and pricing data submitted in Volume IV. The Offeror will need to certify to their cost and pricing data.

Note: If the offeror’s price does not meet the cost/price criteria, then the next HTRO will proceed through steps 1-4. An award will be made if this offeror successfully meets all the evaluation criteria.

2.2. EVALUATION FACTORS

2.2.1 Factor I: Small Business Participation

The offerors Small Business Participation Plan will be evaluated to ensure it meets the objective of 20% small business participation and will be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis as follows:

If an unacceptable rating is received, Factor I will be considered unacceptable and will not be evaluated further.

2.2.2 – Factor II: Technical Experience To validate the self-rated scores of the HTRO the Government will use the Staffing Plan and work samples provided by the Offeror. The Government will review the section of the work sample provided by the Offeror within the Cross Reference Matrix. If the Government is unable to find the substantiating information within the referenced page, paragraph, table, etc., the Government will not search further for the substantiating information. If the Government is unable to validate that Offeror’s self-rated score based on the staffing plan and Cross Reference Matrix, the Government will unilaterally downward adjust the Offeror’s self-rated score, potentially down to zero (0) points. The Government will only adjust the Offeror’s self-rated score downward, not upward. Such adjustments are within the sole discretion of the Government. If the Government downward adjusts the Offeror’s self-rated score because of the validation process, and that Offeror is no longer the highest Government-validated self-rated Offeror, then the Government will validate the next highest self-rated score, until the Government identifies the Offeror with the highest Government-validated self-rated score.

The self-scoring matrix has 2 rows for scoring Brawler experience, this is to separate the experience of a Configuration Manager and an Assistant Configuration Manager. For each element (Brawler; CFAM/GAMS or Other Linear Programming; and Logistics Modeling) up to two (2) individuals may be offered (as a Configuration Manager (CM), and an Assistant Configuration Manager (ACM)) and in the case of the latter 2 elements (CFAM/GAMS or Other Linear Programming; and Logistics Modeling) 2 types of experience can be counted for either, but the experience still must be limited to at most 2 individuals, to ensure that the CM has sufficient experience to coordinate team activities. An example can be found on the self-scoring matrix in the notes.

The maximum score for each element within the Technical Experience scoring criteria are outlined in the Table below:

2.2.3 – Factor III: Past Performance

Each individual Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) submission shall be from separate work efforts. The Government will consider the offeror’s past performance as an entire team (in the case of joint ventures or where primes propose with substantial subcontractors) or on an individual basis for offerors proposing on their own. However, if a signed commitment is not fully executed by both parties and provided with the Past Performance Proposal, only the Offeror’s PPQ will be evaluated. Once all an offeror’s individual submissions are reviewed, a factor-level rating called an Overall Performance Rating will be assigned according to section d below.

The PPQ will be used to evaluate the recency, relevancy, and quality in performance of the contract submission as described below:

For past performance to be considered recent it must consist of an effort that had a period of performance taking place within the last three (3) years with a minimum of 6-months continued performance.

For past performance to be considered relevant the offeror should consider the similarity of product/service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and key personnel use. Relevancy in regard to scope, magnitude of effort, and complexities will be based on, but not limited to, similarities between the given past performance and this solicitation in terms of the following subject areas:

1. Engagement-/Mission-Level Modeling

2. Software Development/Configuration Management

3. ANSI/IEEE 828-1998 System and Software Standards

4. On-Site Modeling Support with TS/SAP Cleared Personnel

5. User-Group Support

6. Website Support (Restricted Access)

7. Courseware Development & Training Support

In order to be relevant, this solicitation requires at least one (1) PPQ for a Prime contractor shall include effort from either subject area 1, 2, or 4 above, and PPQ efforts in total (Prime and Subcontractor/Teaming Partner(s)) shall at a minimum cover subject areas 1, 2, 3 and 4 cumulatively (for at least 2 of the 3 core models managed under this contract (Brawler, CFAM, Logistics)). Subcontractor PPQs may include effort from any of the 7 subject areas.

The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts (how well the contractor performed on the contracts). For each recent and relevant past performance effort reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed. The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of all past performance information available, regardless of its source. This evaluation does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the offeror’s past performance on past contracts, but rather this evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the offeror performed those past contracts.

All three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy, and quality will be considered and combined to assign an Acceptable/Unacceptable rating for each offeror. The overall past performance assessment rating will receive an adjectival rating from the below table:

Note: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have neutral past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered acceptable.

Past Performance Rating

Acceptable Based on the offeror’s, and subcontractor’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 (see note above).

Unacceptable Based on the offeror’s, and subcontractor’s, performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Offerors receiving an Unacceptable rating will be eliminated from the competition.

2.2.4 – Factor IV: Price The Government will evaluate the Total Evaluated Price (defined in paragraph 2 below) of the Government validated HTRO(s) that meet the Small Business participation requirement and acceptable Past Performance. The proposal will be evaluated for completeness, fair and reasonable pricing, and balanced pricing.

1. Complete. The Government will evaluate the price proposals for compliance with Section L and all other portions of the solicitation. The Offeror shall ensure they have provided all pricing information required by the solicitation. The Government will evaluate the completeness of both the Offeror’s IDIQ Labor Rate Pricing and the Offeror’s Initial Task Order Pricing. A $0.00 bid in a labor category, an omitted rate, or other missing price information may result in the Government determining the price proposal to be incomplete. If the Government determines a price proposal to be incomplete, the Government may not be able to further evaluate the proposal for reasonableness and balance and may not be able to make award to that Offeror. In this case, the Government will determine whether to enter into discussions with the Offeror or proceed to the Offeror with the next highest Government-validated self-rated score under Factor 1, Past Technical Experience, with acceptable Past Performance.

2. Reasonableness of Total Evaluated Price. The Government will calculate the TEP by applying notional hours to a predetermined mix of labor categories across all years of the ordering period. The sum of these notional hours applied to the Offeror’s proposed labor rates for each labor category will determine the TEP. Notional hours will be used for Government evaluation purposes only and will NOT be disclosed to any Offerors. The total evaluated price will not be the same as the contract maximum ceiling price. Unless Government conducts discussions, the rates proposed by the Offeror will become contractually binding, and shall be used to price all future Task Orders. If discussions are required, any updated rates proposed will become contractually binding and shall be used to price future Task Orders. The TEP will include evaluation of FAR 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services. This option to extend the contract term shall be evaluated as part of the initial evaluation, whereby any resultant exercise of this option is within scope of the pending contract. The option provision may be exercised more than once, but the total extension of performance hereunder shall not exceed six (6) months. Offerors are required only to price the base and option CLINs. Offerors shall not submit a price for the potential six (6) month extension of services period because the government will use the price of the final option year to calculate the price of the six (6) month extension.

Techniques and procedures found in FAR 15.404-1 will be used to ensure a fair and reasonable price. If there are more than one HTRO then comparison of proposed responses to this solicitation will be the intended price analysis technique.

3. Unbalanced Pricing. Proposals will be analyzed to determine if the prices are materially unbalanced. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. The Contracting Officer reserves the right to reject an offer if it is determined that the lack of balanced pricing poses an unacceptable risk to the government in accordance with FAR Part 15.404-1(g).

4. Realism. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s and first-tier subcontractors’ PECPs and ECPs for realism by assessing the compatibility of proposed cost with proposal scope and effort in accordance with (IAW) FAR 52.222-46 – Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees (July 29, 2022). For the PECP or ECP to be realistic, it must reflect what it would cost the Offeror to perform the effort IAW the scope of the PWS and if performed with reasonable economy and efficiency in the National Capital Region (NCR), based on recognized national and regional compensation surveys (add in specifically what will be used). The PECP and ECP will also be validated against the PWS and the proposed labor categories will be checked for alignment with the work to be performed to ensure that the offeror’s proposed workforce is appropriate for the work to be performed.

3.0 Discussions

The government reserves the right to award without discussions. However, the government reserves the right to hold discussions using Evaluation Notices (ENs) if, during evaluation it is determined to be in the best interest of the government. Therefore, the offeror's initial offer should contain the offeror's best terms from a price, technical capability, and past performance standpoint. Any discussions will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.306. If a competitive range is established, the government may limit the number of proposals to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

4.0 Award

Award will be made to the responsible HTRO with Acceptable Small Business participation, Acceptable Past Performance and price that is complete, fair and reasonable, and balanced with a realistic PECP. The government shall select the source whose proposal offers the best value in accordance with the established criteria of this RFP.

END OF SECTION