2023.11.20 Eval Factors.pdf

Evaluation Factors and Subfactors.

(a) Factors and Subfactors. Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal is determined to represent the overall best value to the Government using a best value tradeoff evaluation process. The following evaluation factors and sub-factors will be used to evaluate each proposal and allow the Government to assess the offeror’s ability to perform the contract. Technical Capability will be evaluated utilizing specific requirements in accordance with (IAW) the IDIQ and Task Order One PWS.

Factor 1 – Business Proposal Factor 2 – Technical/Staffing Factor 3 – Past Performance Factor 4 – Cost/Price Factor 5 – Small Business

(b) Order of Importance. The relative importance of each factor and sub-factor is as follows:

Technical/Staffing, Past Performance, and Price. Within Factor 2 – Technical/Staffing, all sub-factors are of equal importance. Factor 1 – Business Proposal, and Factor 5 – Small Business, will be evaluated for acceptability.

IAW FAR 15.304(e), Factor 2 – Technical/Staffing is more important than Factor 3 – Past Performance, but when combined the factors are significantly more important than Factor 4 – Cost/Price. If there is not a discernible difference in Factor 2 and Factor 3, Factor 4 will be the determining factor.

Factor 1 - Business Proposal. The offeror’s Business Proposal will be evaluated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis. The Government will not award to an offeror that has an Unacceptable rating for this factor.

To be rated Acceptable, the offeror’s proposal shall conform to all requirements of the solicitation, including the Proposal Preparation Instructions under Addendum to FAR 52.212-1. The offeror must be registered in System for Award Management (SAM) at the time of proposal submission.

Factor 2 – Technical/Staffing. Offerors will be given a combined technical/risk rating for each of the Technical Capability sub-factors taking into consideration the offeror’s approach and understanding of the requirements and an assessment of the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies of the proposal. The Technical/Staffing sub-factors are listed in no specific order and are considered equally

General Compliance Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings Rating Description Acceptable Proposal meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

important. Combined technical/risk evaluations shall utilize the combined technical/risk ratings listed in the following table. Proposals receiving a final rating of yellow or red for this factor will be determined unawardable.

Subfactor 1: AMP Modeling and Simulation Capability Development and Sustainment Approach.

The Offeror’s proposal includes a sound plan and logical approach to design, develop, enhance, and sustain AMP Modeling and Simulation software IAW IDIQ PWS Task Areas 4, 10 (includes reference to Appendix D), and 11 (includes references to Appendix E), and Task Order 1 PWS paragraph 1.4.5.1, with the exclusion of IDIQ PWS Appendix D paragraph 1.4.10.6 and IDIQ PWS Appendix E paragraphs 1.4.11.1, 1.4.11.3.1, 14.11.4, and 1.4.11.8.

Subfactor 2: AMP Aerial Refueling Capability Development and Sustainment Approach.

The Offeror’s proposal includes a sound plan and logical approach to design, develop, enhance, and sustain AMP Aerial Refueling modeling capability software IAW IDIQ PWS Appendix D Paragraph 1.4.10.6, IDIQ PWS Appendix E Paragraph 1.4.11.3.1, and Task Order 1, PWS Paragraphs 1.4.5.2 and 1.4.10.6.

Subfactor 3: Cloud Development.

1) The Offeror’s proposal demonstrates a sound plan and logical approach to design, develop, migrate, implement and sustain AMP capabilities within USTRANSCOM’s chosen DevSecOps cloud environment for AMP IAW IDIQ PWS Paragraph 1.4.12.

2) The Offeror’s proposal demonstrates a sound plan and innovative approach to leverage opportunities afforded by a cloud environment to advance AMP analytic and data capabilities IAW IDIQ PWS Appendix E Paragraphs 1.4.11.1, 1.4.11.4, and 1.4.11.8.

Subfactor 4: Transition (Task Order 1, IDIQ PWS paragraph 1.4.1.3.).

1) The Offeror’s proposal includes a sound plan and logical approach for assuming responsibility for this effort immediately upon award to ensure successful transition IAW IDIQ PWS paragraph 1.4.1.3.

2) The Offeror’s approach describes how Offeror will provide for the receipt of Government Furnished Equipment (GFE), set-up a secure “Red Room” facility, coordinate with Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) Facility Clearance Branch for “Approval to Operate” (ATO) certification for access to Secure Internet Protocol Network (SIPRNET), tools and techniques used for software configuration management, version control, and change management, all IAW IDIQ PWS Paragraphs 3, Government Furnished Property and Services, and IDIQ PWS Paragraph 6.1.2 (Facilities Clearance).

Subfactor 5: Staffing Approach

1) The Offeror’s staffing approach includes a sound and logical plan to recruit, hire, and retain personnel with the qualifications, skills, certifications, and individual security clearances required to meet the PWS requirements given their technical approach IAW IDIQ PWS Paragrph

1.4.7.3.2 and Appendix F, DOD Cyber Workforce Framework Code Assignments.

2) The Offeror’s staffing approach includes a Staffing Matrix (Atch X) which identifies the necessary personnel resources given the Offeror’s technical approach to performing the requirements. The Staffing Matrix (Atch X) clearly identifies personnel resources aligned with TO 01 PWS para 5.1 Security Information (Physical, Personnel, Antiterrorism/Force Protection and Industrial) and IDIQ PWS Appendix F, DoD Cyber Workforce Framework (DCWF) Code Assignment requirements.

3) The Offeror’s staffing approach identifies roles that will be filled via subcontracting or teaming arrangements, as applicable.

Significant Strength is defined as an aspect of an offeror’s proposal with appreciable merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the considerable advantage of the Government during contract performance.

Strength is defined as an aspect of an offeror’s proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance. Any strengths identified by the Government during source selection that exceed Attachment 1 – Performance Work Statement requirements will be incorporated into the resultant contract at time of award.

Weakness is defined as a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Significant Weakness is defined as a flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

COLOR RATING DESCRIPTION

Blue Outstanding Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

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

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

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

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable, and/or risk of performance is unacceptably high.

Deficiency is defined as a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

Factor 3 - Past Performance. Past performance will be evaluated as a measure of the Government’s confidence in the offeror’s ability to successfully perform the contract.

The past performance evaluation will consider the recency, relevancy, and quality of a contractor’s past performance efforts.

(i) Recency - To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past five years from the proposal due date and demonstrate three consecutive years of performance. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

The Government will consider recent past performance information identified by each offeror, as well as any additional recent past performance information obtained by the Government, in determining an overall past performance confidence assessment rating for each offeror.

(ii) Relevancy - For each recent past performance reference reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will be assessed. The past performance information submission forms and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the relevancy of past performance.

To be determined relevant, the performance reference must demonstrate the following performance in relation to the current procurement:

Performance Area 1: Experience relevant to developing and sustaining applications for modeling, simulating and analyzing the movement of military-related or commercial cargo and personnel.

Performance Area 2: Experience relevant to developing and sustaining applications for optimizing the movement of military-related or commercial cargo and personnel, with emphasis on heuristics-based and mathematical optimization.

Performance Area 3: Experience relevant to developing and sustaining Air Refueling (AR) modeling, simulation, and analysis applications.

Performance Area 4: Experience relevant to developing and sustaining applications within a Cloud Environment.

While the Government will consider past performance information on relevant projects performed for federal, state and local Governments, as well as in the commercial sector, past performance conducted within the DoD will receive greater consideration when assigning a past performance confidence assessment rating than work performed for organizations other than the DoD.

The below table reflects the definitions that will be utilized to determine the relevancy of each past performance effort.

Past Performance and Relevancy Rating

RATING DESCRIPTION

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.

(iii) Quality - The Government will consider the performance quality of recent and relevant efforts. For each recent/relevant past performance reference reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed.

The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation to include the following, but not limited to: review of the past performance questionnaire responses, Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), SAM, Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and/or interviews with Government mission partners.

As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will be assigned a single Performance Confidence Assessment rating. The assigned rating will reflect the Government’s overall confidence in the offeror’s ability to successfully perform this effort. The Performance Confidence Assessment rating is based upon all of the information submitted, obtained, and determined relevant by the Government, regardless of whether the information is for a prime or subcontractor.

Past performance which cannot be validated by a source other than the offeror will not be considered in the Past Performance Confidence Assessment. Note:

In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, that offeror will receive an overall Performance Confidence Assessment rating of “Neutral Confidence” which will be considered neither favorably nor unfavorably. The below table reflects the Performance Confidence Assessment ratings.

Past Performance Confidence Assessment Rating

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.

Factor 4 – Cost/Price. Cost/Price will be considered in determining the best value offeror. The offeror’s price/cost proposal for Task Order 1 will be evaluated for completeness, balance, and affordability based on methods outlined in FAR 15.404-1.

The offeror will be required to propose a fully burdened labor rate for each labor category at both Government and Contractor sites for the IDIQ labor categories and rates. A pricing template will be provided as an attachment to the RFP to ensure each contractor provides the required pricing information. The Government will perform a most probably cost analysis.

In addition, FAR 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services Clause, is included in this RFP.

The Government will calculate each offeror’s Total Evaluated Price (TEP) by adding the total price of the base requirement, all option periods, and the total price for the 6-month extension of services for Task Order 1. Pricing for the 6-month extension of services period will be based on the final 6 months of the offeror’s final option period. Offeror’s proposed Transition Plan will be excluded from the TEP calculation.

The Government will calculate a total proposed cost/price by applying Government estimated labor hours for each year of contract performance to each offeror’s proposed fully burdened labor rates for each labor category at both Government and Contractor sites. The estimated quantity/labor hours for each labor category, in each year, will not be provided to the offeror as part of the solicitation.

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s professional employee compensation plan and supporting information in accordance with FAR 52.222-46. The offeror shall submit a plan to ensure it reflects a sound management approach and understanding of the contract requirements.

Due to the likely inability of any offeror to accurately estimate Other Direct Costs and/or travel requirements associated with this requirement, the Government is providing dollar figures to be used by all offerors when proposing. The proposed dollar amounts will be identified in the pricing template.

Neutral Confidence No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

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.

Factor 5 – Small Business Factor. The Government will evaluate the extent of participation of small business concerns in the offeror’s plan for acceptability. To be acceptable, the offeror shall provide a complete and responsive small business participation plan that considers all federally-designated small business categories. The offeror’s Small Business proposal will be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis and receive one of the ratings below.

Small Business – Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.