Attachment 0010 - RFP Section M - Amendment 1.docx

RFP W15P7T-24-R-0021 SECTION M

FOR THE

Post Deployment Software Support and Post-Production Software Support Maintenance and Sustainment

CUI

Amendment 1

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104 CUI//SP-SSEL//FED ONLY.

Table of Contents

A. BASIS FOR AWARD (Section M)

The 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 six (6) evaluation factors listed in descending order of importance. Factor 1 - Oral Technical Presentations is significantly more important than all other factors combined. Factor 2 – Past Performance is more important than Factor 3 – Small Business Participation. Factor 3- Small Business is more important Factor 4 - Property Management Plan. When all non-cost factors are combined, they are significantly more important than Factor 5 - Cost/Price.

For Factor 1 – Oral Technical Presentation: Subfactor 1 – Technical Approach is more important than Subfactor 2 – Staffing Approach.

To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than “Acceptable” must be achieved for the technical factor (to include all subfactors), Small Business Participation factor, and Property Management Plan. Additionally, any offer other than a small business offeror must have an acceptable Small Business Subcontracting Plan to receive an award in accordance with FAR 19.702(a). The Past Performance Factor will be used on the quality, relevancy, and recency of the offeror’s past performance. Cost factor will be based on the proposed CPFF and Cost identified in Section L. Offerors will be cautioned that the award may not necessarily be made to the lowest cost offered.

To be considered for award, an Offeror’s proposal at a minimum shall:

a. Provide all submission requirements for all Factors,

b. Participate in Volume I: Technical Oral Presentations,

c. Be rated acceptable in all subfactors for Volume I - Technical (Oral Presentations),

d. Receive a rating of at least “Acceptable” for Volume III- Small Business Participation, Volume IV - Property Management Plan

e. Receive a rating of at least “Neutral Confidence” for Volume II – Past Performance

f. Be determined Fair and Reasonable and be evaluated for realism for Volume V - Cost/Price

g. Incomplete proposals may be deemed unacceptable and may not be considered for award.

B. EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS

The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal: Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below. The Government reserves the right to make award based upon the Cost/Price factor in the event that the Technical, Past Performance, Small Business Participation, and Property Management Plan evaluation results of all the offerors’ proposals are substantially the same.

Factor 1: Oral Technical Presentation is further divided into the following subfactors:

a. Subfactor 1: Technical Approach

b. Subfactor 2: Staffing Approach Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Small Business Participation Factor 4: Property Management Plan Factor 5: Cost Price

The Government reserves the right to not fully evaluate Volume V – Cost/Price of any offeror whose proposal is otherwise found to be ineligible for award IAW with this Section M, Basis for Award.

C. EVALUATION APPROACH

The overarching evaluation approach for all factors and subfactors is as follows:

Proposal evaluations will focus on adequacy of response and feasibility of approach. Adequacy of response assesses whether the offeror's methods and approach have adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirements specified in the RFP. Feasibility of approach evaluates the practicality and achievability of proposed methods, to the extent to which successful performance is contingent upon proven devices and techniques and reliance on successfully completing proposed task and technical requirements within the required schedule.

Volume I: Factor 1: Technical Oral Presentations The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Technical Oral Presentation given in accordance with section L to determine the extent to which the Offeror’s oral presentation conveys an understanding of all instructions and requirements of Section 1: Technical Approach, Section and 2: Manpower. The Government will use the information provided in Volume I: Technical Oral Presentation and the evaluation subfactors below in making their assessments according to the Combined Technical/Risk Rating table below. All of Volume I will be evaluated as one evaluation factor, providing only one rating from each of the below tables to each proposal, which shall speak to the entirety of the Offeror’s Technical Presentation.

The technical factor is as follows:

Subfactor 1: Technical Approach:

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s proposal demonstrates a clear understanding of the requirement, provides a feasible approach to successfully perform the requirements identified in PWS section 3.1.4, 3.2, as it relates to the systems at 6.1 through 6.12 and completely addresses each bullet in Section L, Instructions: Technical Approach. The proposal reflects the Contractor’s technical understanding and experience in technical domains similar to those identified in the PWS.

Subfactor 2: Staffing Approach

a) Each offeror’s approach must demonstrate in detail how their company will meet the Government’s ramp-up requirements to have in place all Key Personnel within thirty (30) days of contract award, and the ability to ramp up to roughly fifty percent (50%) of the total Level of Effort (LOE) referenced in Attachment 0001 – Labor Categories. with Secret clearances within one hundred twenty (120) days, to perform the requirements referenced in PWS 3.1.3.

b) The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed hiring strategy. The Government will also evaluate the feasibility of the offeror’s approach, how likely is the strategy to succeed without incurring additional risk to performance. Finally, the Government will evaluate the offeror’s strategy on retaining qualified staff and maintaining knowledge base, IAW 3.2.2.3.

TABLE 5 - COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

VOLUME II: Factor 2: Past Performance

Government will evaluate the offeror’s record of past and current performance to ascertain the probability of successfully performing the required efforts of the PWS.

1. Evaluation of past performance shall be in accordance with this plan utilizing CPARS and the forms and questionnaires set forth in Appendix D.

2. The Government will make an overall performance confidence assessment after evaluating the recency, relevancy, and quality of the Offeror’s past performance.

3. The past performance factor considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract requirements. There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy, and quality.

RECENCY: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s past performance submission under this solicitation for recency by evaluating each Offeror’s, and all major subcontractors past performance reference(s) to ensure past performance occurred in whole or in part within the past three (3) years, from the issue date of this solicitation.

RELEVANCY: The Government will assess the offerors and all major subcontractors past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort is to the current requirement. The following criteria will be used to establish what is relevant which shall include similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming. The Government will give greater consideration to experience that is more similar in scope and complexity to the requirements of this solicitation. Each recent past performance example will be evaluated for relevancy as follows:

TABLE 6 - Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

iii. QUALITY ASSESSMENT: The Government will evaluate the overall quality of the offeror’s past performance on task order or contract examples that are determined to be recent and at least somewhat relevant. The Government may elect to obtain available information on the Offeror and its major subcontractors, using the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), and other Army sources and resources. Other sources, including documented results from CPARS, and PPIRS may form the support and basis for this assessment. Each recent/relevant past performance example will be evaluated for quality.

4. Performance Confidence Assessment: The Government will utilize the Performance Confidence Assessment (see Table 7 below) to select the most appropriate confidence level for each Offeror.

The Government will review all past performance information collected and determine the quality of the offeror’s performance, and usefulness of the information and incorporate these into the performance confidence assessment. the confidence assessment rating, is based on the offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance.

TABLE 7 - Performance Confidence Assessments

required effort.

favorably or unfavorably on the facto of past performance.

effort.

5. In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance, or for whom information on past performance is not available, or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, or after a review of the record provided by the contractor is determined not relevant and recent, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance and will be assigned a rating of Unknown Confidence (Neutral). An offeror with a Satisfactory rating may be considered higher rated than an offeror with a Neutral rating.

Volume III: Factor 3: Small Business Participation

In accordance with DFARS 215.304(c)(i), the Government will evaluate whether the Offeror’s (both small businesses and other than small businesses) proposed Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD) meets or exceeds the below small business objectives and includes documentation to support how the Offeror will meet their proposed Small Business participation commitment. The Offeror’s Small Business Participation will be rated using the Table below. A rating of at least “Acceptable” must be achieved to be considered for award.

The Government will evaluate the following:

1. The extent to which Small Business Concerns (SBCs), in accordance with, FAR Part 19, are specifically identified by name in each category in the Offeror’s SBPCD proposal and the Offeror’s commitment to firms.

2. The extent to which type, variety, and complexity of work SBCs are proposed to perform IAW PWS Section 3.0 Requirements.

3. The extent to which the Offeror demonstrates a substantive commitment to SBCs, such as letters of commitment, Joint Ventures, mentor/protégé agreements, or other demonstrations of commitment. Binding commitments will become enforceable/contractual requirements.

4. The extent to which the Offeror’s proposed total contract value and small business participation meets the minimum quantitative requirement (MQR) of 20% of the work based on the Offerors total contract ceiling value including the base and all option years. Failure to meet the MQR shall result in the Offeror being unacceptable for this factor and therefore ineligible for award.

5. The extent to which the Offeror’s detailed explanations/documentation supporting their proposed quantitative participation.

6. The extent to which the Offeror complied with and provided past performance information to demonstrate the requirements of FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns.

Small Business Participation Rating Definitions are listed in the Table below.

TABLE 8 - Small Business Ratings

7. The Offeror’s Small Business Subcontracting Plan when it is required. The Small Business Subcontracting Plan is required (FAR 52.219-9) for Other Than Small Businesses (OTSB) offerors ONLY (i.e., Large Businesses). OTSB Firms must submit acceptable subcontracting plans in accordance with FAR 52.219-9 to be eligible for award. Any Small Business Subcontracting Plan submitted shall be relevant to the SBPCD and Volume III -- Small Business Participation.

NOTE: Subcontracting plans will only be reviewed for acceptability for the Offeror deemed to be apparent awardee.

Volume IV: Factor 4: Property Management Plan The Property Management Plan will be evaluated for compliance with the requirements set forth in the Instructions to Offerors, Proposal Contents, and Volume IV – Property Management Plan. The Property Management Plan will be rated as “Acceptable or Unacceptable.”

Table 10 - Property Management Plan Rating

Volume V: Factor 5: Cost/Price

The total evaluated price to be used in determining the best suited offeror will be the total identified in the offeror’s xxxxCOSTxxxx.XLS file, (which includes all options), subject to probable cost adjustments, when and where appropriate, to the CPFF and Cost-No-FEE CLINS to compute the Total Evaluated Price. The total evaluated price will include the sum total of the CPFF and Cost efforts, noting that the CPFF and Cost amounts may be adjusted upward or downward during the Government’s realism analysis. The Government will evaluate to ensure that all proposed prices and costs are fair, reasonable, and realistic Each offeror’s proposal will be evaluated IAW the criteria in FAR 15.404-1. Accordingly, the analytical techniques and procedures prescribed in FAR 15.404-1 for evaluating an offeror’s proposal may be used singly or in combination with others to conduct cost realism evaluation and ensure the costs are fair, reasonable, and realistic. Offerors are responsible for submitting support for proposed pricing; noncompliance with these instructions may result in a proposed cost being deemed “undeterminable” and ineligible for award. Note: Subcontractors proposing on a Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP), Time and Materials (T&M), and Labor Hour (LH) basis are not required to provide any support beyond the Fully Burdened Labor Rates (FBLRs) submission.

The Government’s Total Evaluated Cost/Price will consist of the following:

a. The probable cost of the CPFF and the Cost-No-Fee (CNF) CLINs based on the cost realism analysis IAW paragraph (b) below and FAR Subpart 15.4.

b. For the Cost No Fee and CPFF efforts, the Government will evaluate the realism of the offeror's proposed costs in accordance with FAR 15.404-1 (d) and/or (c). A cost realism analysis will be performed on all CLINs to determine the probable cost of performance for each offeror by evaluating whether the cost elements are realistic for the work to be performed, reflect a clear understanding of the requirements, and are consistent with the unique approach proposed in Volume I: Technical. The probable cost may be determined by adjusting (for purposes of developing the Total Evaluated Cost/Price only) each offeror’s proposed cost upward or downward, when appropriate, to reflect any additions in cost elements to realistic levels based on the results of the cost realism analysis to ensure a realistic cost. If the cost realism analysis indicates that an offeror’s cost is low, the Government will consider the risks to the Government associated with the low cost. The Total Evaluated Cost/Price includes the CPFF, and COST CLINs, subject to Probable Cost adjustments.

c. The Government may use external sources of information to perform its cost evaluation. Such external sources may include, but are not limited to, salary survey companies, such as the Economic Research Institute (ERI), the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), Department of Labor (DoL), and the Department of State (DoS).

d. DCAA, or DCMA. This DOES NOT relieve the offeror from the requirement to submit supporting documentation for its proposed rates. Failure to provide sufficient supporting documentation may result in the price being “undeterminable” and therefore, not eligible for award.

e. The Government reserves the right to not fully evaluate the Volume V – Cost/Price of any offeror whose proposal is otherwise found to be ineligible for award IAW with this Section M, Basis for Award.

DEFINITIONS

Adverse Past Performance. Past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation.

Deficiency. 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. See FAR 15.001.

Significant Strength. An aspect of an offerors’ proposal with appreciable merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the considerable advantage of the Government during contract performance.

Strength. An aspect of an offerors’ proposal with merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the advantage of the Government during contract performance.

Significant Weakness. A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

Trade-off Process is the process that permits trade-offs among cost or price and non-cost factors and allows the Government to accept other than the lowest priced proposal.

Weakness. A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.