Section M DRAFT FOR SAM POSTING 12-16-2022.docx

SP3300-23-R-5001

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M-1 ALL OR NONE

Offers must be submitted for all contract line item numbers (CLINs) listed below to be evaluated for a single contract award. Offers for less than all CLINs will be rejected.

(End of Text M-1)

M-2 EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS

1. Evaluation Approach

FAR Provision 52.215-1, "Instructions to Offerors--Competitive Acquisition" is included in Section L of this solicitation. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with Offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR Part 15.306(a)). Therefore, the Offeror's initial proposal should contain the Offeror's best terms from a cost and technical standpoint.

If, after initial evaluation of offers, an award cannot be made without discussions, a competitive range determination will be made by the Source Selection Authority (SSA) IAW FAR Part 15.306(c).

Communications shall be held with Offerors whose past performance information is the determining factor keeping them from being placed within the competitive range. If communications are necessary, Offeror(s) will be allowed to address adverse past performance information to which the Offeror(s) had not had a prior opportunity to respond.

An “Unacceptable” rating on any one (1) of the three (3) Technical Evaluation Factors (Factors 2, 3, and 4) shall render the proposal ineligible for award, or if discussions are held, a proposal with an unacceptable rating may be excluded from the competitive range. A rating of “Unacceptable” on any sub-factor will result in a rating of “Unacceptable” at the factor level. A rating of “Marginal” at the sub-factor level will result in a rating of “Marginal” at the factor level.

It is the intention of the Government to award without discussions, however, if it is determined discussions are required, then the determination of the competitive range will include all proposals which are considered to be the most highly rated and may include those that are considered to have a reasonable chance of being selected for award, unless the competitive range is further limited in accordance with FAR Part 15.306(c)(2). Those Offerors whose proposals do not fall into the competitive range will be so notified as prescribed by FAR Part 15.503(a)(1).

Those Offerors whose proposals are determined by the SSA to be in the competitive range will be contacted by the Acquisition Specialist for discussions. Exchanges (i.e., discussions) will be conducted in accordance with FAR Part 15.306(d). If verbal discussions are held, they will be followed by a written reiteration of the discussion. Written discussions also may be held, whereby the Government provides a written list of discussion questions to each Offeror, as appropriate. In the case of both verbal and written discussions, the Offeror shall provide a written response to the discussion question and revision to the proposal, as required. This response and revision (if required) shall be marked accordingly to distinguish it as a supplement to the original proposal. More than one (1) round of discussions may be held. At the conclusion of final discussions, the Government will request each Offeror in the competitive range to submit a Final Proposal Revision (FPR). A common cut-off date for submission of FPRs will be established by the Contracting Officer in accordance with FAR Part 15.307(b). In the event further discussions are required after receipt of the FPRs, the Contracting Officer may reopen discussions and Offerors will be required to submit another FPR. Final factor and sub-factor ratings will be based upon the evaluation of the FPR.

A proposal will be determined ineligible for award if any of the technical evaluation factors are rated as “Unacceptable” (Factors 2, 3, and 4) or if the Performance Confidence Assessment Factor (Factor 1) is rated as “No Confidence” following evaluation of FPRs.

The Contracting Officer will promptly notify Offerors when their proposal is excluded from the competitive range, whereupon they may request and receive a debriefing IAW FAR Part 15.505. The Contracting Officer will notify unsuccessful Offerors in the competitive range of the source selection decision IAW FAR Part 15.503(b). Upon such notification, unsuccessful Offerors may request and receive a debriefing IAW FAR Part 15.506. Offerors requesting a debriefing must make their request IAW the requirements of FAR Part 15.505 or FAR Part 15.506, as applicable.

2. Basis for Contract Award

The award of a contract as a result of this solicitation will be based on a Best Value/Trade Off assessment by the SSA. The SSA will make a tradeoff assessment based on the results of the evaluation utilizing the relative importance of the evaluation factors as indicated below. The integrated assessment shall include consideration of the significant strengths, strengths, weaknesses, uncertainties, and significant weaknesses of the proposals and a consideration of tradeoffs between the past performance evaluation, technical evaluation, and cost/price. The Government reserves such right of flexibility in conducting the evaluation as is necessary to ensure placement of a contract in the Government's best interest. Accordingly, the Government may award any resulting contract to other than the Offeror with the lowest cost, or other than the Offeror with the highest evaluation ratings.

The contract resulting from this solicitation will be awarded to that responsible Offeror whose offer, conforming to the solicitation, is determined most advantageous to the Government, cost/price and other factors considered.

To be eligible for award, the Offeror shall have an accounting system, determined by the Government to be acceptable to support the non-fixed-price line items on the resultant contract. Per DFARS Clause 252.242-7006, Accounting System Administration, an acceptable accounting system is defined as one that provides for (1) a sound internal control environment, accounting framework, and organizational structure; (2) proper segregation of direct costs from indirect costs; (3) identification and accumulation of direct costs by contract; (4) a logical and consistent method for the accumulation and allocation of indirect costs to intermediate and final cost objectives; (5) accumulation of costs under general ledger control; (6) reconciliation of subsidiary cost ledgers and cost objectives to general ledger; (7) approval and documentation of adjusting entries; (8) Management reviews or internal audits of the system to ensure compliance with the Contractor’s established policies, procedures, and accounting practices; (9) a timekeeping system that identifies employees’ labor by intermediate or final cost objectives; (10) a labor distribution system that charges direct and indirect labor to the appropriate cost objectives; (11) interim (at least monthly) determination of costs charged to a contract through routine posting of books of account; (12) exclusion from costs charged to Government contracts of amounts which are not allowable in terms of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 31, Contract Cost Principles and Procedures, and other contract provisions; (13) identification of costs by contract line item and by units (as if each unit or line item were a separate contract), if required by the contract; (14) segregation of preproduction costs from production costs, as applicable; (15) cost accounting information, as required (i) by contract clauses concerning limitation of cost (FAR 52.232-20), limitation of funds (FAR 52.232-22), or allowable cost and payment (FAR 52.216-7); and (ii) to readily calculate indirect cost rates from the books of accounts; (16) billings that can be reconciled to the cost accounts for both current and cumulative amounts claimed and comply with contract terms; (17) adequate, reliable data for use in pricing follow-on acquisitions; and (18) accounting practices in accordance with standards promulgated by the Cost Accounting Standards Board, if applicable, otherwise, Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. If the Contracting Officer cannot determine the system is acceptable, the Offeror will not be eligible for award. If the offeror does not provide proof of an acceptable accounting system as part of its proposal, it may be eliminated from the competition without further review of its proposal.

In addition, to be eligible for award, the Offeror will be required to have a DCSA approved facility clearance at the time of proposal submission. The DLA Distribution Acquisition Operations (J7) Contracting Officer shall verify the Offeror clearly possess a DCSA approved facility clearance at time of proposal submission. If it cannot be determined that the Offeror possesses a DCSA approved facility clearance at or above the requirement in the solicitation, the Offeror will not be eligible for award. If the offeror does not possess a DCSA approved facility clearance at the time of proposal submission, it will be eliminated from the competition without further review of its proposal.

Additionally, in order to be eligible for award, all offerors shall have submitted an acceptable OCI Mitigation Plan (if applicable) or certify there are no relevant facts that could give rise to an actual or potential OCI as defined in FAR Part 2.101.

All of these items will be evaluated by the Government and reviewed for acceptability.

3. Evaluation Factors

The Government will evaluate proposals based on the following four (4) non-cost/price factors, listed here in descending order of importance:

*Sub-factors under Transition and Sustainment of Operations Approach are listed in descending order of importance.

All evaluation factors (1 through 4), when combined, are significantly more important than cost/price.

Award will be made to the Offeror who provides a complete proposal pursuant to the preparation requirements set forth in Section L of the solicitation, is responsive to the evaluation factors defined in this section, and provides the best overall value to the Government, as determined by the SSA. Cost/price is not a rated evaluation factor but will be considered in determining the best value to the government. The degree of importance of cost/price will increase with the degree of equality of the proposals in relation to other factors on which selection is based.

EVALUATION FACTOR 1: PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT

There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy (including context of data), and quality (including general trends in contractor performance and source of information).

The Government will evaluate past performance information provided in E-File II of the proposal and any other relevant past performance information obtained from other sources which may include: the Federal Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) application, Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, Contracting Officer’s Representatives (CORs) or other pertinent officials; responses received from the Past Performance Questionnaire; and the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA).

The Government will first evaluate the offeror’s past performance references to determine the recency and relevancy of those references to this acquisition. In the context of this procurement, recency is defined as a contract performed within five (5) years of the solicitation issuance date. If contract performance is within five (5) years of the solicitation issuance date, the entire contract performance will be considered as part of the performance confidence. The relevancy assessment will consider the similarity of scope, magnitude of effort, and the complexities this solicitation requires. With respect to relevancy, more relevant past performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance.

The Government shall then determine how well the contractor performed on the recent and relevant contracts (Quality of Products or Services). The Government will assign an overall performance confidence assessment rating as to the Offeror’s ability to perform on the required effort based upon the recent and relevant past performance record considering the information available regarding quality of performance from the sources noted above.

The Government will consider past performance data of the offeror and its major subcontractors. A major subcontractor is defined as those providing twenty percent (20%) of total dollar threshold and/or twenty-five percent (25%) of total man-hour effort. Subcontractors not meeting the definition of a “major subcontractor” will not be evaluated. If major subcontractor experience is provided as part of the past performance references, it will be given weight relative to the percentage of effort being provided by that particular subcontractor in the offer submitted.

Prime offeror past performance will be given more weight than major subcontractor past performance. Offerors shall keep in mind the ostensible subcontractor rule if more than 40% of the effort is being provided by a subcontractor.

A signed commitment by the Offeror and major subcontractor(s) certifying that the parties commit to joint performance as proposed is required for past performance of a major subcontractor to be evaluated or considered.

Affiliate companies, sister companies, teaming arrangements, joint venture agreement, etc. will be considered provided sufficient documentation including an adequate narrative discussing the meaningful relationship between the parties is included in the Past Performance Proposal. Documentation includes a copy of the documented arrangement such as documented affiliation, a copy of the teaming agreement, a copy of the joint venture agreement, etc. Major subcontractor references without a signed commitment will not be considered or evaluated.

Offerors without a Past Performance Record, for whom a Past Performance Record is not available, or whose relevant performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned, shall receive a “Neutral Confidence” Performance Confidence Assessment rating. Should the Government discover adverse past performance information to which the Offeror(s) had not had a prior opportunity to respond, the KO will conduct communications if deemed appropriate.

EVALUATION FACTOR 2: MANAGEMENT APPROACH

Evaluation Factor 2 has three (3) sub-factors: Distribution Operations, Quality Control, and Training. The sub-factors are listed in descending order of importance.

Sub-factor (a): Distribution Operations

The Offeror’s Distribution Operations proposal will be evaluated on the feasibility of the proposed approach to successfully and independently manage distribution operations regardless of challenges that may occur in a controls-based audit environment. The government will consider the Offeror’s proposed agility and resiliency to analyze, plan and monitor performance of contract requirements while ensuring flexible operations able to quickly adapt to changes.

Sub-factor (b): Quality Control

The Offeror’s Quality Control approach will be evaluated on the feasibility of the proposed approach to provide a prevention-based approach to mitigate process-based errors by successfully implementing and executing a Quality Control Plan for monitoring and surveilling Distribution Operations meeting all objectives in all areas of contract performance.

Sub-factor (c): Training

The Offeror’s Training approach will be evaluated on the feasibility of training and maintaining a trained to standard workforce with the ability to perform up to all training and performance standards for the life of the contract.

EVALUATION FACTOR 3: STAFFING APPROACH

Evaluation Factor 3 has three (3) sub-factors: Key Personnel; Staffing for Full Performance and Organizational Chart; and Risk Management and Employee Retention. The sub-factors are of equal importance.

Sub-factor (a): Key Personnel

The Offeror’s Key Personnel resumes will be evaluated to determine if the proposed key personnel have the qualifications and experience to perform the duties described in Section H-4 Substitution and Addition of Key Personnel and Attachment J.1 – Section C – Performance Work Statement, Section C-1.3, Key Personnel Requirements.

Sub-factor (b): Staffing for Full Performance and Organizational Chart

The Offeror’s Staffing (i.e., Attachment J.8 Staffing Matrix and the Organizational Chart) will be evaluated to determine if the proposed labor categories and productive labor hours (to include work shifts and use of full-time, part-time, and overtime resources) represent a realistic approach to perform the projected workload in accordance with the processes described in solicitation, its attachments, and the DLA Distribution Standard Operating Procedures. The Government will evaluate the time-standards proposed for each ordering period along with the associated narrative describing how time standards were developed.

Sub-factor (c): Risk Management and Employee Retention

The Offeror’s Risk Management and Employee Retention will be evaluated on the feasibility of mitigating turnover, minimizing the loss of human capital and associated knowledge, and ensuring appropriate supervision of resources.

EVALUATION FACTOR 4: TRANSITION AND SUSTAINMENT OF OPERATIONS APPROACH

Evaluation Factor 4 has two (2) sub-factors: Transition Approach and Continuation of Essential Contractor Services. The sub-factors are listed in descending order of importance.

Sub-factor (a): Transition Approach

The Offeror’s Transition approach will be evaluated on the feasibility of the proposed approach to successfully facilitate a transition IAW Attachment J.1 – Section C – Performance Work Statement, Section C-1.8, Transition Plan.

Sub-factor (b): Continuation of Essential Contractor Services

The Offeror’s Continuation of Essential Contractor Services plan will be evaluated on the processes for assessing the situation, determining the appropriate response, achieving recovery, and meeting performance standards when there is a disruption in normal workload to successfully implement Mission Essential Contractor Services during adverse situations or disruptions or normal workload.

4. COST/PRICE PROPOSAL

The Government will assess the Offeror’s cost/price proposal in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. This assessment will determine the reasonableness of the cost/price proposed. Cost/price analysis will not be conducted on proposals determined to be unacceptable for award or for inclusion in the competitive range, as it will be assumed that the cost/price proposed is not reasonable based on an unacceptable technical approach.

Price analysis will be conducted in accordance with FAR Part 15.404-1(a)(2). Price realism analysis will be conducted on the non-Cost Reimbursement CLINs. This will involve a review of the base labor rates to ensure compliance with statutory requirements, where applicable; to ensure the labor mix and hours are reasonable, realistic and consistent with the technical proposal; and to ensure that the direct labor is realistic for the location of performance and is consistent with any hiring, staffing, and retention approaches outlined in the technical proposal. If adequate price competition is received, the Government may elect to not review the indirect rates for the non-Cost Reimbursement CLINs, assuming that the rates are reasonable based on adequate price competition. Cost realism analysis will be conducted on the Cost-Reimbursement CLINs in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(d).

The Government will arrive at a Total Evaluated Contract cost by adding the Offeror’s Firm-Fixed Price CLIN amounts to the evaluated Cost Reimbursement, no fee (inclusive of applicable indirect rates for all years of performance) Not-to-Exceed amount CLINs and the evaluated Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee CLIN (inclusive of applicable indirect rates and fee for all years of performance).

a. Evaluation of CLINs X001 and 0008 (Firm-Fixed-Price CLINs):

The Government will perform price realism analysis, considering the Offeror’s proposed hours, labor mix, and base labor rates.

b. Evaluation of CLINs X002, X003, X004, and X005 (Cost-Reimbursement CLINs):

The Government has provided an estimated cost for these CLINs. As stated in Section L, Offerors shall apply their G&A, Material Handling, or other Indirect Rate, as supported by the Offeror’s accounting system, to the Government provided Estimated Cost to arrive at the proposed Not-to-Exceed amount. The Government will assess the proposed rate for realism. The Government may utilize rate information available from Government resources to assist with the evaluation.

If an Offeror fails to identify or disclose as part of its proposal an indirect cost rate that would otherwise be applicable to one of the support or subcontract cost items, it shall not be allowed to invoice for the indirect rate after award since the evaluation of its offer did not include that rate.

c. Evaluation of CLIN X006 (Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee CLINs):

The Government has provided an estimated cost for these CLINs. The Government will assess the proposed rates for realism. The Government may utilize rate information available from Government resources to assist with the evaluation.

If an Offeror fails to identify or disclose as part of its proposal an indirect cost rate that would otherwise be applicable to one of the support or subcontract cost items, it shall not be allowed to invoice for the indirect rate after award since the evaluation of its offer did not include that rate.

(End of Text M-2)

END OF SECTION M