EWPMTDraftSectionM.pdf

SECTION M

SOLICITATION PROVISIONS

1.0 BASIS FOR AWARD

Any award will be made based on the best overall (i.e., best value) proposal that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the four evaluation factors: Technical, Past Performance, Cost and Small Business Participation Plan. The Technical factor is more important than the Past Performance factor, which is slightly more important than the Cost factor, which is more important than the Small Business Participation Plan factor. The non-cost factors, when combined, are significantly more important that the Cost Factor. To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than "Acceptable" must be achieved for the Technical factor, all Technical sub-factors, and the Small Business Participation Plan factor. In addition, a rating of no less than “Limited” or “Unknown” confidence must be achieved for the Past Performance Factor to receive consideration for award. Offerors are cautioned that the award may not necessarily be made to the lowest cost offered.

2.0 FACTORS AND SUB-FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

1. FACTOR I - TECHNICAL. Sub-factor (a) is more important than sub-factor (b).

(a) Tech Approach

(b) Management Approach

2. FACTOR II – PAST PERFORMANCE.

3. FACTOR III – COST.

4. FACTOR IV – SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION PLAN.

3.0 EVALUATION APPROACH

All proposals received will be evaluated by a team of Government personnel assisted by Non-

Government Subject Matter Experts (SME) who will serve on the SSEB as evaluators and assist the

Government in the SSEB process. The SMEs will have access to all necessary parts of the Offeror’s proposal pertinent to their area of expertise. The SMEs will not be Factor or Sub-factor leads. A list of non-Government SMEs and their company affiliations, is included in Enclosure 1. The Offeror shall advise the Contracting Officer as soon as possible of any concerns/questions with regard to the use of non-Government SMEs from the cited companies. Any Offeror that is affiliated with, or is contemplating a contractual relationship with, any of the listed firms must notify the Contracting Officer for this solicitation as soon as possible, but no later than ten days prior to the submission of its proposal.

3.1 TECHNICAL EVALUATION APPROACH. The evaluation of the offeror's technical proposals will consider the following criteria:

a. Understanding the Problems. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which it demonstrates a clear understanding of all features involved in solving the problems and meeting the requirements, and the extent to which uncertainties are identified and resolutions proposed.

b. Feasibility of Approach. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the proposed approach is workable and the end results achievable. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which successful performance is contingent upon unproven devices and techniques that require excessive development. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the level of confidence provided the Government with respect to the offeror’s methods and approach in successfully meeting the requirements in a timely manner. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the offeror is expected to be able to successfully complete the proposed tasks and technical requirements within the required schedule. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the approach facilitates the implementation of both enhancements and unanticipated future change to the overall system. In the event that enhancements are proposed, the enhancements will be evaluated to determine whether the approach taken is feasible and will result in an end product that fully meets or exceeds the RFP requirements.

c. Adequacy of Response/Completeness. The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the offeror’s methods and approach have adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirements specified in the RFP. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which each requirement of the RFP has been addressed in the proposal in accordance with the proposal submission section of the RFP.

3.2 PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION APPROACH. The Past Performance evaluation will assess the relative risks associated with an offeror's likelihood of success in performing the solicitation's requirements as indicated by that offeror's record of past performance. In this context, “offeror” refers to the proposed prime contractor and all proposed major subcontractors. Major subcontractor is defined as a subcontractor anticipated to perform more than 10 percent of the total contract value. The prime contractor and proposed major subcontractors will be assessed individually, and the results will then be assessed in their totality, to derive the offeror’s Past Performance factor rating.

a. The Government will conduct a past performance assessment based on the relevancy and recency of the offeror's past performance, as well as that of its major subcontractors, as it relates to the probability of successful accomplishment of the required effort. When assessing past performance, the Government will focus its inquiry on the past performance of the offeror and its proposed major subcontractors as it relates to all solicitation requirements. These requirements include all aspects of schedule, performance and supportability, including but not limited to the offeror’s record of 1) compliance of products, services , documents and related deliverables to specification requirement and standards of good workmanship; 2) effectiveness of program management, (to include use and control of subcontractors); 3) timeliness of performance for services and product deliverables, including the administrative aspects of performance; 4) effectiveness in forecasting and controlling project cost; 5) commitment to customer satisfaction andd business-like concern for customer’s interest and, 6) overall satisfaction.

b. Offerors are cautioned that in conducting the past performance assessment, the Government may use data provided in the offeror's proposal and data obtained from other sources. Since the

Government may not necessarily interview all of the sources provided by the offerors, it is incumbent upon the offerors to explain the relevance of the data provided. Offerors are reminded that while the Government may elect to consider data obtained from other sources, the burden of proving low performance risk rests with the offerors.

A significant achievement, problem, or lack of relevant data in any element of the work can become an important consideration in the source selection process. A negative finding under any element may result in a rating of No Confidence. Therefore, offerors are reminded to include the maximum number of recent, relevant past efforts, including demonstrated corrective actions, in their proposal.

3.3 COST EVALUATION APPROACH. For the purpose of evaluation, the Government will evaluate the realism of the Offeror's proposed costs in relation to the Offerors specific technical approach in Task

Order 1. The Offeror's proposed cost will be evaluated by determining what the Government predicts the

Offeror's approach would most probably cost the Government when the work performed under the contract is completed. To the degree that the Government's most probable cost estimate differs from the

Offeror's proposed cost, the Offerors proposed cost may be adjusted for the purposes of evaluation.

a. For all Cost Reimbursement type efforts issued under the base contract, cost realism will be performed at the Task Order level.

b. For all Fixed Price type efforts issued under the base contract, price evaluation will be performed at the

Task Order level.

3.4 SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION PLAN EVALUATION APPROACH. All offerors (both large and small businesses) will be evaluated on the level of small business commitment that they are demonstrating for the proposed acquisition, and their prior level of commitment to utilizing small businesses in performance of prior contracts. The following shall evidence small business participation:

a. The extent to which such firms, as defined in FAR Part 19, are specifically identified in proposals;

b. The extent of commitment to use such firms (enforceable commitments will be weighted more heavily than non-enforceable ones);

c. The complexity and variety of the work small firms are to perform;

d. The realism of the proposal;

e. (e) Past performance of the offeror in complying with the requirements of the clauses at FAR

52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, and, for all large business offerors, FAR

52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan;

f. The extent of participation of such firms in terms of the value of the total acquisition to include

SDB dollars by North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code deemed applicable by the offeror.

g. The extent to which the offeror provides detailed explanations/documentation supporting the proposed participation percentages, or lack thereof. The goals for this procurement are as follows:

Small Business: 23% of the total contract value; Small Disadvantaged Business: 5% of the total contract value; Women-Owned Small Business: 5% of the total contract value; Historically

Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) Small Business: 3% of the total contract value; Veteran

Owned Small Business: 3% of the total contract value; Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small

Business: 3% of the total contract value.