AMENDMENT_0007_SOL_W15QKN16R0003_R-MAS_ATTACHMENT_0042_SECTION_M_BASIS_FOR_AWARD_TRACKED_CHANGES.pdf

Solicitation Number: W15QKN-16-R-0003 Recruiting, Management, and Administrative Services (R-MAS)

Attachment 0042 – Basis for Award

BASIS FOR AWARD (Section M): Awards will be based on the best overall (i.e. best value) proposals that are determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, using a subjective trade-off analysis with appropriate consideration given to the following three evaluation factors: Technical, Cost or Price, and Past Performance. The Technical Factor is significantly more important than the Past Performance Factor which is more important than the Cost or Price Factor. All Non-Priced Factors when combined are significantly more important than the Cost or Price Factor. Offerors are cautioned that an award might not be made to the lowest Cost or Price offer.

In order to streamline the evaluation process, the Government intends to first evaluate Subfactor 1, Corporate Experience, under Factor 1, Technical, of the Technical Proposal. Proposals rated as Unacceptable for Subfactor 1 will be rejected without any further evaluation of the other evaluation Factors/Subfactors, or any opportunity to revise the proposal. Proposals that are rated higher than Unacceptable for Subfactor 1 will be further evaluated, in accordance with the evaluation criteria set forth under each Factor/Subfactor, and considered in designated order of importance. Offerors are cautioned that the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award contracts without discussions with Offerors. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions, if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary.

Additionally, the Government reserves the right to make staggered awards. Awards may be made after initial evaluations, or any time thereafter, to Offerors with highly rated proposals that represent the best value to the Government.

If utilizing the staggered award method, the Government may enter into discussions with those Offerors in the competitive range, and additional awards may be made at the conclusion of discussions. Contracts that are awarded later will have an adjusted period of performance for the base period; however, the option periods will be the same for all awardees.

The Government intends to award approximately 10 to 12 MA IDIQ contracts. Awards will be made to the best overall proposals, which are determined to be the most beneficial to the Government.

The Government reserves the right to begin issuing task order Requests For Information (RFIs), Requests For Proposals (RFPs) and awards prior to the expiration of the current HRS MA IDIQ suites of contract vehicles. However, the Government will issue task order RFIs, RFPs and awards against the R-MAS suite of contracts upon the expiration of the current HRS MA IDIQ suites of contract vehicles’ ordering periods.

FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

The following Factors and Subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal: Awards will be made to the Offerors whose proposals represent the best value to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation Factors and Subfactors described below.

Factor 1 – Technical

Subfactor 1 – Corporate Experience

Subfactor 2 – Sample Task A

Subfactor 3 – Sample Task B

Subfactor 4 – Sample Task C

Subfactor 5 – Staffing Approach

Subfactor 6 – Management Approach

Factor 2 – Cost or Price

Factor 3 – Past Performance

Factor 1 – Technical: The Technical Factor consists of six Subfactors: Corporate Experience; Sample Task A, Sample Task B, Sample Task C; Staffing Approach; and Management Approach. Except for the Corporate Experience Subfactor, which is significantly more important than Sample Task A, all Subfactors are in descending order of importance.

Evaluation of the Offeror’s proposal shall address the Sample Task A, B and C Subfactors as they apply to the Sample Task Performance Work Statements (PWSs);

and the Corporate Experience Subfactor, the Staffing Approach Subfactor and the Management Approach Subfactor as they apply to the MA IDIQ PWS.

The Government intends to first evaluate Factor 1, Subfactor 1, Corporate Experience.

Proposals rated as unacceptable for this Subfactor 1 will be rejected without further evaluation or any opportunity to revise the proposals. Offerors are required to demonstrate that its team has Corporate Experience providing services of similar scope and complexity necessary to perform the entire effort. Proposals that are not rejected based on the Subfactor 1 evaluation will be further evaluated, in accordance with the evaluation criteria under the Technical Factor, and considered in the designated order of importance under that Factor.

Offerors that demonstrate Corporate Experience in all 5 major Recruiting, Management, and Administrative support task categories (PWS Section 2.2), may receive a higher rating.

A detailed explanation of the criteria for the evaluation is set forth in the “Evaluation Approach”, paragraph of this section. During evaluations of each proposal not rejected based on the Subfactor 1 evaluation, the Government will assign the Technical Factor an adjectival rating and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the identified findings.

Factor 2 –Cost or Price: The resulting awards will be MA IDIQ contracts with provisions for FFP, CPFF, FFP-LOE and T&M Task Orders with CR line items (no fee) for Travel and ODCs. Price analysis will be utilized to evaluate all FFP efforts. The

Sample Task Price evaluations will not be conducted during the MA IDIQ contract evaluation and the Sample Task prices will not be factored into the overall evaluated Price. If the Government decides to award any of the Sample Tasks, a price analysis will be used to evaluate the FFP Sample Tasks and will be conducted after initial MA IDIQ contract awards. A detailed explanation of the criteria for evaluation is set forth in the “Evaluation Approach”, paragraph of this section. During evaluation of each proposal, the Government will arrive at a total evaluated price and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the identified findings. Note that due to the expected low volume of FFP-LOE, CPFF, T&M, CR and OCONUS efforts, the rates will be solicited and evaluated at the individual Task Order level.

Factor 3 – Past Performance: Each Offeror’s past performance will be evaluated for recency, relevancy and quality. A detailed explanation of the criteria for evaluation is set-forth in the “Evaluation Approach”, paragraph of this section. During evaluation of each proposal, the Government will assign a confidence rating and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the identified findings.

EVALUATION APPROACH

All proposals shall be subject to evaluation by the Source Selection Team (SST) which is comprised of Government personnel.

FACTOR 1 – Technical: The Technical Factor and the subfactors will be evaluated against the following criteria:

a) Understanding of the requirements. The extent to which the proposal demonstrates a clear understanding of the requirements in the PWS to be satisfied, issues to be resolved, and the required tasks, services, and skill sets required to achieve program objectives. The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the Offeror’s understanding of the requirements is adequately reflected in their approach to ensuring integration throughout the program.

b) Completeness/Adequacy of response. The extent to which the proposal adequately and completely considers, defines and satisfies the PWS and other requirements specified in the solicitation. The extent to which each requirement of the solicitation has been addressed in the proposal in accordance with the proposal instructions in the solicitation.

c) 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 whether the Offeror’s methods and approach to meeting the requirements in a timely manner provide the Government with a high level of confidence of successful execution and minimize the risk of performance problems.

The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the Offeror is expected to be able to successfully complete the proposed PWS tasks and technical requirements within the required schedule. The evaluation will also consider the proposed hours and labor mix for the Sample Tasks.

d) Marginal levels of detail could indicate a lack of understanding concerning requirements and may result in the entire proposal receiving an unfavorable rating and/or being eliminated from the competitive range.

e) Unsupported promises to comply with contractual requirements will not be sufficient. Proposals must contain supporting rationale for any statements relating to proposed performance. Each proposal will be rated strictly in accordance with its written content.

f) No assumptions will be made by evaluators regarding areas that are not addressed in the Offeror’s written proposal or written responses to Government Evaluation Notices (ENs).

g) Offerors are cautioned that “parroting” of the Technical requirements or the PWS with a statement of intent to perform does not reflect an understanding of the requirement or capability to perform. Offerors are responsible for including sufficient details to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of each proposal. Proprietary information shall be clearly marked.

h) The Technical Factor Ratings, listed below focus on the significant strengths, strengths, deficiencies, significant weaknesses, weaknesses, uncertainty, and risk of the Offeror’s proposal. The color and rating depicts how well the Offeror’s proposal meets the Technical Subfactor requirements. Technical Subfactor ratings will be rolled up into an overall rating for the Technical Factor.

TABLE 1 – COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, 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, 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.

Risk, as it pertains to source selection, is the potential for unsuccessful contract performance. The consideration of risk assesses the degree to which an Offeror’s proposed approach to achieving the technical factor or subfactor may involve risk of disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

Uncertainty is any aspect of a non-cost/price factor proposal for which the intent of the offer is unclear (e.g. more than one way to interpret the offer or inconsistencies in the proposal indicating that there may have been an error, omission, or mistake).

The following definitions will be used in the evaluation process:

a) Deficiency – A material failure of the 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.

b) Strength – 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.

c) Significant Strength – An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that has appreciable merit or appreciably exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be appreciably advantageous to the Government during contract

d) Weakness – A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful

e) Significant Weakness – A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Within the Technical Factor, each Subfactor will be rated separately using the above adjectival ratings. Each Subfactor will be assessed for significant strengths, strengths, significant weaknesses, weaknesses, uncertainties, deficiencies and risks. Each

Subfactor will be assigned an adjectival rating based upon these collective findings.

The compilation of these Subfactor adjectival ratings will form the basis of the Factor rating.

Offerors that receive a final rating of Unacceptable at any Factor/Subfactor level are ineligible for award.

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

FACTOR 2: Cost or Price – The Cost or Price factor will be evaluated, but will not receive an adjectival rating. The Offeror must ensure all the requested proposal submission information is in accordance with Section L of the solicitation.

MA IDIQ Contract: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed fully loaded FFP hourly Contractor site and Government site labor rates for the labor categories specified in the solicitation (See SOL_W15QKN16R0003_R-MAS_ATTACHMENT 0005_BASIC_LABOR RATESAttachment 0005 “Basic Labor Rates”) by performing a price analysis on the total evaluated price calculated from the proposed fully loaded FFP labor rates. FFP-LOE, CPFF, T&M, CR, and OCONUS rates will not be established at the IDIQ-level and will be solicited and evaluated at the Task Order level.

For labor categories that are subject to the McNamara-O-Hara Service Contract Act (SCA), the element of cost breakout for the FFP fully loaded labor rates will be evaluated to ensure compliance with the applicable wage determination or collective bargaining agreement.

The proposed fully loaded FFP labor rates will be multiplied by the Government estimated hours (for evaluation purposes only) for each labor category for performance at both Government site and Contractor site locations to compute an extended price for each labor category in each year. Note that the Government estimated hours are based on historical data and do not necessarily represent the anticipated usage of each labor category. All extended prices will be summed to derive a total for each year of the base and option periods. The total for each year of the base and option periods will be summed to derive the total evaluated price for the MA IDIQ contract.

If the Offeror receives an award, the proposed FFP labor rates will be incorporated into the resulting MA IDIQ contract as ceiling rates. Ceiling rates in the MA IDIQ will be used as an upper limit when submitting proposals in response to FFP Task Orders and other procurement actions regardless of whether the effort(s) is performed by the prime or the subcontractor.

Sample Tasks: The Sample Task Price evaluations will not be conducted during the MA IDIQ contract evaluation, and the Sample Task prices will not be factored into the overall evaluated Price. If the Government decides to award any of the Sample Tasks.

A price analysis will be used to evaluate the FFP Sample Tasks and will be conducted after initial MA IDIQ contract awards. Sample tasks may be awarded, at the Government’s discretion, within the first 12 months of the MA IDIQ contract ordering period. Only Offerors receiving MA IDIQ contract awards will be eligible to receive awards for the Sample Tasks. Sample Task awards will be based on the best overall (i.e. best value) proposals that are determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the following: Technical Subfactor Sample Task A, B or C ratings and the corresponding Sample Task Total Evaluated Price. The Sample Task Technical Subfactor is significantly more important than the corresponding Sample Task Price. Evaluation of price will be performed using price analysis techniques in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b). For each Sample Task, the

Offeror’s proposed fully loaded FFP labor rate for each proposed labor category will be multiplied with the Offeror’s proposed number of labor hours to compute an extended price for each labor category for each year. (Note: The Offeror’s proposed fully loaded FFP labor rates shall not exceed the Offeror’s proposed fully loaded FFP labor rate ceilings.) All extended prices will be summed to derive a total for each year. The total for each year will be summed to derive a total evaluated price for each Sample Task Order.

For labor categories that are subject to the SCA, the element of cost breakout for the FFP fully loaded labor rates under the task orders will be evaluated to ensure compliance with the applicable wage determination or collective bargaining agreement.

Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s). As part of the Sample Task Order price evaluation, the Government will evaluate the option to extend services (FAR Clause 52.217-8) by adding six months (50 percent) of the Offeror’s final Sample Task option period price to the Offeror’s Sample Task total price compute a Total Evaluated Price for each Sample Task. Thus for Sample Tasks A, B and C, the Offerors total evaluated Sample Task prices for each Sample Task, for purpose of evaluation, will include a one year base period which includes a transition period, two, 12 month option periods, and the option to extend (six months (50 percent) of the 2nd option period’s price). Offerors shall not provide a price for the six-month extension period.

For This MA IDIQ Contract’s and Sample Tasks’ Proposals. Offerors are cautioned that a proposal is presumed to represent an Offeror’s best effort to respond to the solicitation. Any inconsistency, whether real or apparent, between promised performance and price, should be explained in the proposal. Any significant inconsistencies, if unexplained, raise a fundamental issue of the Offeror’s understanding of the nature and scope of work required and his/her financial ability to perform under the contract, and may be grounds for rejection of the proposal.

Unbalanced Pricing.

The Government may determine that a proposal is unacceptable if the prices proposed are materially unbalanced. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, one or more contract line items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. In accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g), a proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

FACTOR 3: Past Performance – The 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 the past performance questionnaire set forth in Attachment 0039.

(2) The Government will focus its inquiries on the Offeror’s and proposed major

Subcontractors’ records of performance as it relates to all solicitation requirements, including all aspects of the delivery of R-MAS services as identified in the PWS and adherence to cost or price; schedule; performance and management of subcontractors, including the Offeror’s record of Program Management; Personnel recruitment and retention; Timeliness; and Business Relations. Major subcontractors are defined as members of an Offeror’s overall team who are expected to perform 2515% (based on the total MA IDIQ Program Ceiling Value) or more of the services described in R-MAS PWS Sections 2.2. For parent companies, subsidiaries and affiliates, explain how the resources of these entities will perform on the instant effort. Offerors are reminded to include the most recent and relevant efforts (within the past five years) in their proposal.

Absent any recent and relevant past performance history or when the performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror will be assigned a “neutral confidence rating” and its proposal will not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably on past performance. The Government may use data provided by the Offeror in its proposal and data obtained from other sources, including Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), data from other Government systems and file or data obtained through interviews with personnel familiar with the contractor and their current and past performance under Government and/or commercial contracts for same or similar services as compared to the North American Industry Classification system (NAICS) 541612. Data used in conducting performance risk assessments shall not extend past five years prior to the issue date of the solicitation, but may include performance data generated during the past five years without regard to the contract award date.

(3) Offerors shall submit up to ten Government and/or commercial contracts for the prime

Offeror and up to five for each major subcontractor currently being performed or awarded during the past five years, from the issue date of this solicitation, which are relevant to the efforts required by this solicitation. The Government may consider a wide array of information from a variety of sources, but is not compelled to rely on all of the information available.

(4) 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 of the past performance evaluation:

recency, relevancy (including context of data) and quality (including general trends in contractor performance and source of information).

i. Recency: The first step is to evaluate the recency of the Offeror’s past performance. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant, and is critical to establishing the relevancy.

ii. Relevance: The second step is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the Offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. Common aspects of relevancy include similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, use of key personnel and extent of subcontracting/teaming.

PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

Rating Definition

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 Assessment: The third step is to establish the overall quality of the Offeror’s past performance on those recent efforts that were determined relevant by determining how well the contractor performed on the contracts. Documented results from past performance questionnaires, interviews, CPARS, and other sources will be used to do this assessment. A separate quality assessment rating will not be given;

however, the past performance confidence assessment rating will be based on recency, relevancy, and quality of performance.

(5) Performance Confidence Assessment: The final step is to arrive at a single consensus performance confidence assessment for the Offeror, selecting the most appropriate rating from the chart below. This rating considers the assessed quality of the relevant/recent efforts gathered.

PAST PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE RATINGS

Rating Definition

Substantial Confidence

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has 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.

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

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.

Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating from sources where the information is from other than formal rating systems such as Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) and Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS).