Att 1 Section M - Tracked Changes 0001.pdf

SP3300-24-R-5003

Amend 0001

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.

An “Unacceptable” rating on any one (1) of the three (3) Technical Evaluation Factors (Factors 1, 2, 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.

If, after initial evaluation of offers, an award cannot be made without discussions,In accordance with DFARS 215.306, the Government intends to evaluate proposals and conduct discussions with offerors prior to award of the contract. Aa competitive range determination will be made by the Contracting Officer (KO) IAW FAR Part 15.306(c) and approved by the Source Selection Authority (SSA). The Acquisition Specialist and the KO will conduct discussions with all offerors in the competitive range. The Government reserves the right to make a final determination on whether a proposal is acceptable or unacceptable for award solely on the basis of the information submitted with the initial proposal and during discussions and to proceed without requesting additional information. No offeror will be given an unlimited amount of opportunities for correction of a proposal.

Prior to the establishment of the competitive range, the KO may enter into limited “communications” as described in FAR 15.306(b). Communications will be limited to only those offerors as described in FAR 15.306(b)(1)(i) and (ii); those offerors whose past performance information is the determining factor preventing their placement into the competitive range or those offerors whose exclusion or inclusion into the competitive range is uncertain.

It is the intention of the Government to award without discussions, however, if it is determined discussions are required, then tThe 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). Offerors excluded from the competitive range or otherwise excluded from the competition before award may request and receive a debriefing in accordance with FAR 15.505.

Offerors will submit their responses to the initial discussion questions on their written proposal in accordance with the due date and time identified in the evaluation notices. The Offeror’s 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. If, during discussions, the KO decides that an offeror’s proposal should no longer be included in the competitive range, written notice of this decision will be provided to unsuccessful offerors in accordance with FAR 15.503.

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 KO in accordance with FAR Part 15.307(b). In the event further discussions are required after receipt of the FPRs, the KO 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 1, 2, and 4) or if the Performance Confidence Assessment Factor (Factor 3) is rated as “No Confidence” following evaluation of FPRs.

The KO will notify unsuccessful Offerors in the competitive range of the source selection decision IAW FAR 15.503(b). Upon such notification, unsuccessful Offerors may request and receive a debriefing. Offerors requesting a debriefing must make their request IAW the requirements of FAR 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 Source Selection Authority (SSA) based on a comparative assessment of the proposals against all the source selection criteria herein. The integrated assessment shall include consideration of the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and/or deficiencies of the competing proposals and a consideration of tradeoffs between the technical evaluation, past performance 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.

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 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. If the KO cannot determine that the system is acceptable, the Offeror will not be eligible for award.

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) KO 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.

Lastly, 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. 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.

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:

Evaluation Factor 1: Distribution Center Operations Sub-factor (a): Staffing for Full Performance Sub-factor (b): Operations Approach Sub-factor (c): Employee Recruitment and Retention

*Sub-factors under Distribution Center Operations are of equal importance.

Evaluation Factor 2: Maintaining a Contractor Owned Contractor Operated Facility

(COCO)

This Factor has no Sub-Factors

Evaluation Factor 3: Performance Confidence Assessment This factor has no Sub-Factors

Evaluation Factor 4: Transition This factor has no Sub-Factors

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: DISTRIBUTION CENTER OPERATIONS

Evaluation Factor 1 has three (3) sub-factors: Staffing for Full Performance, Employee Recruitment and Retention, and Operations Approach. Sub-factors under Distribution Center Operations are of equal importance.

Sub-factor (a): Staffing for Full Performance

The Offeror’s Staffing will be evaluated to determine how well the proposed labor categories, Organizational Chart, 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 the solicitation, its attachments, and the DLA Distribution Standard Operating Procedures. The Government will evaluate the Productive hours proposed for each ordering period per operational/functional area, along with the associated narrative describing how Productive hours were determined. In addition, 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 Personnel and C-1.3.1, Key Personnel Requirements.

Sub-factor (b): Operations Approach

The Offeror’s Distribution Operations approach will be evaluated on how well the proposed approach manages distribution operations successfully and independently, regardless of challenges that may occur in a controls-based audit environment. Additionally, the Offeror’s Distribution Operations approach will be evaluated on the use of both DSS and WMS, as necessary, adjusting for the use of newly published and changing SOPs and regulations issued as the new WMS is stabilized. 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 (c): Employee Recruitment and Retention

The Offeror’s Employee Recruitment and Retention approach will be evaluated on the feasibility of recruiting and maintaining an experienced workforce, mitigating turnover, minimizing the loss of human capital and knowledge, ability to replace the loss of personnel with critical skills and transactional system knowledge ensuring appropriate supervision of resources, and how analysis of the region results will be applied to support retention strategies.

EVALUATION FACTOR 2: MAINTAINING A CONTRACTOR-OWNED CONTRACTOR-OPERATED

FACILITY (COCO)

The Offeror’s approach will be evaluated to determine how well the proposed lease and/or proposed facilities and stock transfer plan meet the requirements depicted in Attachment J.2 – Supplement to J.1 Performance Work Statement, Section 4.7M, Contractor Furnished Facilities.

EVALUATION FACTOR 3: PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT

There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recently, relevancy (including context of data), and quality (including general trends in contractor performance and source of information). All three aspects will be considered for each of the contracts or requirements evaluated.

The Government shall first evaluate the recency of the Offeror’s past performance reference. Recency is defined as a contract performed within five (5) years of the solicitation issues 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 assessment. Once an offeror’s past performance reference is determined recent, the second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror to this acquisition. The relevancy assessment shall 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 third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine the overall quality of the Offeror’s past performance references that have been determined recent and relevant. The evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the Offeror performed those past contracts. The Government will review all past performance information collected and determine the quality of the Offeror’s performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information.

The primary means of collecting past performance data from Offerors will be through the use of information submitted by the Offeror (Past Performance References/Index) as part of the Offeror’s proposal and a Past Performance Questionnaire that will be included in the solicitation. Other methods of obtaining past performance information may include the following: Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), System for Award Management (SAM.gov), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, Contracting Officer’s Representatives (CORS), or other pertinent officials;

and the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA).

The Government will assign an overall performance confidence assessment rating based on the Offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance. demonstrating: (1) A quality product or service (i.e. the conformance to contract requirements, specifications, and standards of good workmanship); (2) Timeliness of the contract with regard to completion of contract, delivery orders, milestones, delivery schedules and administrative requirements (e.g., effort that contributes to or affects the schedule variance); (3) Acceptable cost control with regard to the Offeror’s effectiveness in forecasting, managing, and controlling contract cost; (4) Management of the program, personnel, invoicing, quality control, and performance objectives and standards; (5) Regulatory compliance, and (6) Any additional, pertinent information.

The Government will consider past performance data of the Offeror and its major subcontractors. A major subcontractor is defined as those providing at least twenty percent (20%) of total dollar threshold and/or at least twenty-five percent (25%) of total man-hour effort. Subcontractors not meeting the definition of a “major subcontractor” will not be evaluated. Additionally, the performance must have occurred within five (5) years of the solicitation issuance date. Affiliate companies, sister companies, teaming arrangements, joint venture agreements, etc. will be considered provided sufficient documentation 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.

A signed commitment by the Offeror and major subcontractor certifying that the parties commit to joint performance as proposed is required for past performance of a major subcontractor to be evaluated or considered. Major subcontractor references without a signed commitment will not be considered or evaluated.

Prime offeror past performance will be given more weight than major subcontractor past performance, as the prime offeror is responsible for overall contract performance. However, as the level of effort provided by the major subcontractor increases, so does the importance of the major subcontractor past performance references.

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 4: TRANSITION

The Offeror’s approach will be evaluated on how well the approach successfully facilitates a transition IAW Attachment J.1 – Section C – Performance Work Statement, Section 1.8, Transition Plan, as well as Attachment J.2 – Section 1.8M (only applicable if transferring to a new COCO facility).

4. COST/PRICE PROPOSAL

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 (See paragraph M-2, Paragraph 2: Basis for Contract Award, for a definition of an acceptable accounting system).

Although cost/price has a lower merit and weighing designation than previously depicted Evaluation Factors, cost/price will be assessed as part of the best value analysis. In those evaluations where all other evaluation factors, when combined, are significantly more important than cost/price, the degree of importance of the cost/price will increase with the degree of competitiveness of the proposals considered for award in relation to the other factors on which selection is to be based.

The Government will assess the Offerors’ cost/price proposal. This assessment will determine the reasonableness of the cost/price proposed.

Price analysis will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(a)(2). Price realism analysis will be conducted on the non-CR CLINs, with the exception of CLINs X007, and X010. This will involve a review of the base labor rates to ensure compliance with statutory requirements, where applicable, and to ensure the labor mix and hours are reasonable, realistic, and consistent with the technical proposal and to ensure that labor rates are realistic for the location and hiring conditions. If adequate price competition is received, the Government may elect to not review the indirect rates or profit for the non-CR CLINs, assuming that the rates and profit are reasonable based on adequate price competition; however, the Government will ensure that the rate application is consistent with other CLINs and in accordance with what is outlined in the cost proposal. Cost realism analysis will be conducted on the CPFF and CR CLINs in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(d).

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

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.

Cost/price analysis will not be conducted on Offerors determined to be “Unacceptable” for award or for inclusion in the competitive range; proposed cost/price will, however, be considered in assessing whether an offeror should be included in the competitive range.

a. Evaluation of CLINs X001 and 0009 (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 X007 and X010 (Firm-Fixed-Price CLINs):

The Government will perform price analysis on these CLINs, considering various proposed facility costs to include, but not limited to lease/rental costs for the facility, building maintenance and repairs, utilities, insurance, and taxes;

connectivity for IT equipment; landline telephone and copier connectivity, security system.

c. 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 cost realism. The Government may utilize rate information available from Government resources to assist with the evaluation.

d. 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 cost realism. The Government may utilize rate information available from Government resources to assist with the evaluation. Additionally, in accordance with FAR 15.404-4c(4)c, the Contracting Officer will ensure the proposed fee does not exceed 10% of the contract’s estimated cost, excluding fee.

The Attachment J.6 CLIN X006 Labor Rate Table will be evaluated to ensure that the calculations were performed correctly, that the burdened rates proposed include all indirect costs, excluding fee, and that all proposed labor categories and rates are consistent with the labor categories and rates proposed for CLIN X001.

(End of Text M-2)

END OF SECTION M