SP4702-22-R-0004 Attachment 3 - Section M.pdf

Section M

ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE/CLIMATE SURVEY AND MULTI-SOURCE (MSF)

360 LEADERSHIP ASSESSMENT AND ASSOCIATED CONSULTING, TECHNICAL

AND ANALYTICAL SUPPORT SERVICES

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1.0 BASIS FOR AWARD

The award shall be made to the responsible firm, whose proposal is determined to be the best value to the Government, technical approach, solution demonstration, past performance, cyber security, and price considered. The Government’s objective is to obtain the highest quality services considered necessary to achieve the stated objectives of this acquisition, with fair and reasonable prices. Award will be made on the basis of a best value trade-off source selection process. Offerors are advised that a proposal meeting the Government’s objectives and requirements with the lowest price may not necessarily be selected if award to a higher priced proposal is determined to be most advantageous to the Government.

A proposal must demonstrate to the Government's satisfaction that the Offeror will provide a solution and approach that will ensure the successful accomplishment of each stated objective in the Performance Work Statement (PWS). The Government will evaluate the submissions based on the material presented in the written proposals.

1.1 Evaluation Method

The contract resulting from this solicitation will be awarded to the Offeror whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements and is determined to provide the best value to the Government. The best value determination will be based on the merits of the offer and the Offeror’s capability. The best value may not necessarily be the proposal offering the lowest price or receiving the highest technical rating. An offer must be evaluated acceptable or better in all evaluation factors for the Offeror to be eligible for award.

OFFERS THAT DO NOT CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS STATED HEREIN MAY

BE DETERMINED UNACCEPTABLE AND MAY BE REJECTED WITHOUT FURTHER

EVALUATION.

REJECTION of GROSSLY DEFICIENT OFFERS:

If an initial assessment of an offeror’s proposal finds that the proposal is grossly deficient, the Government may exclude that offeror’s proposal from this competition prior to discussions or competitive range determination without evaluating the offeror’s proposal against the evaluation factors as defined in Section M. Grossly deficient proposals fail to address essential requirements of the Organization Culture/Climate Survey and Multi-Source (MSF) 360 Leadership Assessment AND Associated Consulting, Technical AND Analytical Support Services RFP, or fail to furnish information demonstrating compliance with mandatory requirements set forth in the Organization Culture/Climate Survey and Multi-Source (MSF) 360 Leadership Assessment

AND Associated Consulting, Technical AND Analytical Support Services RFP, or in some other manner do not represent a reasonable initial effort by the offeror to address the requirements of the RFP.

Proposals will be rated in accordance with the evaluation factors listed below. However, price is an important factor and shall be considered when preparing proposals. While evaluation factors (other than price) are significantly more important than price, the importance of price as an evaluation factor increases with the degree of equality among offerors of the non-price factors in their individual proposals. Accordingly, when Offerors are considered essentially equal in terms of technical capability, price may become the determining factor for award. The Government reserves the right to award to a lower cost Offeror when the offers are considered essentially equal in terms of non-price capability, or when specific strengths and/or benefits associated with a technically superior offer do not support the payment of any associated cost or price premium.

In summary, cost/technical capability, tradeoffs will be made.

1.2 Award without Discussion:

The Government intends to hold discussions but reserves the right to make awards without discussions. Proposals should contain the firm’s best terms within the proposed technical and business approach and should address all evaluation factors. Additionally, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions and request proposal revisions if it is determined to be necessary. 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 an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals (refer to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.306(c)).

1.3 No Award:

The Government reserves the right to not make an award based on this solicitation if such award is determined contrary to the best interest of the Government.

1.4 Single Award

The Government anticipates the award of a single Firm Fixed Price (FFP), Indefinite- Delivery/Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ) contract to the Offeror whose proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation and is considered to represent the best value to the Government.

2.0 PROPOSAL AND EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS

2.1 Evaluation Factors and Subfactors:

Factor 1: Technical Evaluation

Subfactor A: Organizational Culture Model including a Culture Survey and MSF 360 Leadership Assessment

Subfactor B: DLA Adapted Climate Survey

Subfactor C: Administration and Management of the combined DLA Culture/Climate Survey

Subfactor D: Administration and Management of DLA MSF 360 Leadership Assessment Subfactor E: Staffing and Management Plan Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Price

2.2 Relative Importance of Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

The above evaluation factors are listed in descending order of importance. All non-price evaluation factors (Factors 1, and 2), when combined, are significantly more important than Factor 3, price. As the non-price factor ratings become more equal among proposals, the evaluated price becomes more important.

Proposal information provided for one factor may be used to assess other factors if the Government deems if appropriate.

Note: If a proposal receives a rating of “Unacceptable” in any of the Non-price Factors or Subfactors, the entire proposal will be determined "Unacceptable" and will be ineligible for award.

The awardee will be the Offeror who presents the best value approach to the Government’s requirement. The Government’s objective is to obtain the highest quality supplies and services considered necessary to achieve the required level of performance on the Task Order. If needed the Government may enter into discussions with all Offeror(s) to determine if an Offeror fully understands the requirement.

3.0 DESCRIPTION OF EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS

The Offeror shall use the requirements outlined in the PWS to respond to Factor 1 (including the five subfactors), Factors 2 and 3. The subfactors under Factor 1, are weighted equally and will be rolled into one evaluation rating for Factor 1.

3.1 Factor 1: Technical Evaluation

• Subfactor A: Organizational Culture Model including a Culture Survey and MSF 360 Leadership Assessment

• Subfactor B: DLA Adapted Climate Survey

The Government will review and evaluate the Offeror’s knowledge to design, develop and translate tailored questions and response for the climate survey that will ensure compliance to successfully fulfill the requirements of the PWS.

• Subfactor C: Administration and Management of the combined DLA Culture/Climate Survey

The Government will review and evaluate the Offeror’s knowledge of all pre-survey and post survey administration activities involved with the DLA Culture/Climate Survey that will ensure compliance to successfully fulfill the requirements of the PWS.

• Subfactor D: Administration and Management of DLA MSF 360 Leadership Assessments

The Government will review and evaluate the Offeror’s knowledge of all activities involved with the set-up, administration, data collection, report generation, feedback, interpretation, and teleconference support for the MSF 360 Leadership Assessment process that includes all activities used in the Federal Government that will ensure compliance to successfully fulfill the requirements of the PWS. Organizational culture survey with historical DLA MSF 360 Leadership Assessment data.

• Subfactor E: Staffing and Management Plans

The Government will review and evaluate the Offeror’s Staffing and Management Plan to ensure the resources will successfully execute the requirements outlined in the PWS.

Factor 1 will be used to evaluate the degree to which the Offeror’s proposed approach meets all requirements and challenges and demonstrates a clear understanding of the Organizational Culture Survey and MSF 360 Leadership Assessment and associated consulting, technical and analytical support requirements as described in the PWS. The figure below provides the ratings descriptions.

Technical and Risk Ratings Adjectival

Rating Description

Outstanding

Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Good

Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Acceptable

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal

Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable

Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, , contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is ineligible for award.

Figure 1: Factor 1 Capability Rating Method

3.2 Factor 2: Past Performance

3.2.1 The past performance evaluation results in a performance confidence assessment rating of the Offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements derived at by considering each Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance and how well the Offeror performed on the contracts. The Past Performance assessment is based on four aspects: Recency, Relevancy, Quality, and Confidence. In rating past performance, the following will be considered.

Recency of Prior Contracts

The first aspect is to evaluate the recency of the Offeror’s past performance. Recency is expressed as a time during which past performance references are considered relevant. Past performance that is or was completed in the last three (3) years prior to the solicitation issue date considered to be recent. Experience that is less recent will not be evaluated as highly as recent experience.

Figure 2: Past Performance Recency Rating Method

3.2.2 Relevancy of Prior Contracts

The second aspect is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the Offeror is to the effort to be acquired. The Government will evaluate relevancy of the Offeror’s prior projects to the current PWS requirements as provided in the Offeror’s written proposal. In establishing what is relevant for the acquisition, consideration will be given to those aspects of an Offeror’s contract history that will give the greatest ability to measure whether the Offeror will satisfy the current procurement. More relevant past performance will be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the performance confidence assessment than less relevant past performance. Common aspects of relevancy include similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, use of key personnel (for services) and extent of subcontracting/teaming. Highly relevant past performance requires that most of the prior contracts provided are essentially the same scope, magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Past Performance Recency Ratings Adjectival Rating Definition Very Recent Presently performing work.

Recent Past performance within the past 3 years of this solicitation.

Somewhat Recent Past performance within the past 3 to 10 years of this solicitation.

Not Recent Past performance beyond the past 10 years of this solicitation.

Figure 3: Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method

3.2.3 Quality of Products or Services

The third aspect is to establish the overall quality of the Offeror’s past performance. The past performance evaluation is to determine how well the Offeror performed on prior contracts by such indicators as the organization’s history of successful completion of projects; history of producing high-quality reports and deliverables; commitment to customer satisfaction; and history of staying on schedule and within budget. Evaluation of this aspect will be based on information provided in Past Performance Questionnaires and the Offeror’s proposal and may include the Government’s independent verification with Offeror’s prior customers or through past performance databases, including but not limited to, the Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS) through the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS).

Additionally, the Government may use information from publicly available sources including, but not limited to, internet searches, Dun & Bradstreet Reports, and news stories. If the Government’s information conflicts with assertions made in the Offeror’s proposal, the Offeror will be asked to clarify this information.

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Very Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Past Performance Quality Ratings

Outstanding Response demonstrates historical projects with outstanding experience and history of producing high quality reports, deliverables, and staying on schedule and within budget. An outstanding overall past performance based on past performance information.

Good Response demonstrates historical projects with good experience and history of producing high quality reports, deliverables, and staying on schedule and within budget. A good overall past performance based on past performance information.

Acceptable Response demonstrates historical projects with satisfactory experience and history of producing high quality reports, deliverables, and staying on schedule and within budget. An acceptable overall past performance based on past performance information.

Marginal Response demonstrates poor overall experience performing historical projects and does not exhibit experience and history of either producing high quality reports, deliverables, or staying on schedule and within budget. Marginal overall performance based on past performance information.

Unacceptable Response demonstrates an unsatisfactory overall experience performing historical projects and does not exhibit experience and history of producing high quality reports, deliverables, or staying on schedule and within budget. An unacceptable overall past performance based on past performance information.

Figure 4: Past Performance Quality Rating Method

3.2.4 Other Information Sources

The Government may solicit information from an Offeror’s customers and business associates;

Federal, state, and local Government agencies; and from other persons and organizations. The Government reserves the right to limit the number of references it decides to contact as well as the right to contact references other than those provided by the Offeror.

The final aspect is the Performance Confidence Assessment, which the Government will review and assess past performance information to determine its recency, relevancy, and quality to assign a Past Performance Confidence rating. Each Offeror will be assigned one rating from the table below.

Performance Confidence Assessments 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.

Figure 5: Past Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method

3.2.5 Neutral Rating

Offerors that have no record of past performance (i.e., new businesses) must submit a signed and dated statement to that effect. If an Offeror submits a certification statement and the Government has no information available regarding the Offeror’s past performance, that Offeror will receive a neutral rating (i.e., the Offeror is evaluated neither favorably nor unfavorably) for past performance. A prime or significant subcontractor that does not provide any contract reference information will receive a neutral rating for past performance. Furthermore, if Offerors (prime and significant subcontractors) provide contract reference information that is not relevant and current as defined in Section L, Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors, the Offeror will receive a neutral past performance rating for those contracts.

3.3 Factor 3: Price

A Price Proposal shall be submitted in accordance with instructions set forth in this solicitation.

Evaluation of an Offeror’s proposal shall be based on the information presented in the proposal and information available to the Contracting Office from sources deemed appropriate. Sources typically considered include, but not limited to, the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) office, Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), other contracts with the same firms for similar items or services, known commercial sources such as Global Insight Inc. (formally Data Resources, Inc.), Standard and Poor Index.

3.3.1 Price Reasonableness

Proposals will be evaluated for price reasonableness. If price reasonableness cannot be determined, additional pricing information will be requested by the Government in accordance with Defense FAR Supplement (DFARS) 215.403-5. Price evaluation will be based on the total price offered for all Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs). If necessary, an informal breakdown will be required at the CLIN level to include by not limited to; material, labor, overhead, general and administrative expenses, miscellaneous subcontracting, travel/per diem, contract data and any miscellaneous cost items.