Section_M_-_Basis_For_Award_6-22-17_.pdf

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 four (4) evaluation factors which are listed in descending order of importance:

1. Technical

2. Past Performance

3. Cost/Price

4. Small Business Participation

The Technical Factor is the most important and more important than the other three Factors. The Technical Factor is significantly more important than Past Performance which is significantly more important than Cost/Price which is slightly more important than Small Business Participation. All non-cost/price factors when combined are significantly more important than Cost/Price. Each factor and sub-factor will be evaluated. Small Business Participation is the least important factor. Offerors will be cautioned that the award may not necessarily be made to the lowest cost offered.

To receive consideration for award, a rating of “Acceptable” or better must be achieved for Factors 1, 2, and 4. The proposed cost/price in Factor 3 must be determined to be both fair and reasonable. After the Government individually evaluates and rates the proposal, the Source Selection Authority will determine the “Best Value – Trade-off” proposal submitted for the identified scope of work. Offerors will be cautioned that the award may not necessarily be made to the lowest cost offered. In accordance with FAR 15.306, the Government intends to make an award without discussions; however the Government reserves the right to hold discussions if necessary.

B. FACTORS AND SUB-FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

The following evaluation factors and sub-factors 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 sub-factors described below. The overall rating of factor 1, the Technical Factor, will be derived from the combined ratings of its sub-factors. All sub-factors for factor 1 are equally important.

Factor 1: The Technical Factor is further divided into the following sub-factors:

a. Sub-factor 1 – Key Personnel Qualifications (Managerial and Instructors)

b. Sub-factor 2 – Overall Program Execution Approach

c. Sub-factor 3 – First Year Program Execution

Evaluation of the offeror’s proposal shall address each sub-factor as it applies to the Performance Work Statement (PWS). A detailed explanation of the criteria for the evaluation is set forth in the “Evaluation Approach”, Paragraph C of this section. After evaluation of the Technical Factor the Government will assign each subfactor an adjectival rating and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the identified findings.

Factor 2: Past Performance: Each offeror’s past performance will be reviewed to determine relevancy, recency and quality for a confidence assessment.

Factor 3: Cost/Price: The resulting award will be CPFF. Cost realism will be utilized in the evaluation of Cost Reimbursable efforts.

Factor 4: Small Business Participation: The extent of Small Business Participation will be evaluated for unrestricted acquisitions.

C. EVALUATION APPROACH

All proposals shall be subject to evaluation by the Source Selection Team (SST).

1. The overarching evaluation approach for all factors and sub-factors is as follows:

a. Adequacy of Response. 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 Request For Proposal (RFP). The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which each requirement has been addressed in the proposal in accordance with the proposal submission section of the RFP.

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 proven methods and techniques. 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.

2. Technical - Factor 1 is divided into the following sub-factors:

Sub-factor 1 - Key Personnel Qualifications (Managerial and Instructors): This sub-factor evaluates the offeror’s resumes, training certificates, and other supporting documentation to ensure designated personnel have a minimum of three years of experience and technical knowledge of the operation and maintenance of the PATRIOT system or other comparable Air Defense Weapon System, to effectively perform the tasks stated in the PWS. Also, the Government will evaluate key personnel supporting documentation to ensure a minimum of one year classroom instruction experience and be a graduate of a US military approved Instructor Training Course or Methods of Instruction course by instructor/writer candidates to demonstrate competency. Failure to provide resumes, training certificates, and other supporting documentation indicates a lack of understanding and may result in the entire proposal receiving an unfavorable rating and/or elimination from the competitive range.

Sub-factor 2 - Overall Program Execution Approach: This sub-factor evaluates the offeror’s technical approach to performing the PWS. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed approach, processes and schedule used to support the Project Office’s whole program from new equipment training to fielding of equipment. The evaluation will be based on how well the offeror’s course development demonstrates its competency and capability to handle scheduling, concurrent training, and overlapping PWS requirements in order to meet Government need. Major emphasis will be placed on the following:

• The extent to which the proposed technical approach demonstrates the contractor’s understanding of Software Interactive Multimedia Instruction, Post Deployment Build-8, Post Deployment Build-8 Intermediate Maintenance Training, Secure Internet Protocol Router/Non-Secure Internet Protocol Router Access Point/Tactical Transportable Tropo-scatter Training, Configuration 3+ Engagement Control Station and Organizational Maintenance Training in the PATRIOT NET PWS.

• The extent to which the proposed technical approach demonstrates the contractor’s understanding of the ability to obtain necessary data and hardware in order to execute the base and option year training schedule.

• The extent to which the proposed technical approach demonstrates the contractor’s ability to retain and hire key personnel including managerial and instructors with 3 years PATRIOT experience or other comparable Air Defense Weapon System

• The extent to which the proposed technical approach demonstrates the contractor’s knowledge of the PATRIOT hardware and software modifications to be utilized in training or other comparable Air Defense Weapon System.

• The extent to which the proposed technical approach demonstrates the contractor’s abilities to modify and develop new course material.

Sub-factor 3 - First Year Program Execution: This sub-factor evaluates the offeror’s proposed plan for first year execution plan. The evaluation will be based on how well the offeror’s plan defines, explains and demonstrates its methodology to obtain hardware and technical data needed for completing all course development and training in the first year of the program. The evaluation will focus on:

• The extent to which the offeror’s proposed plan demonstrates the contractor’s knowledge of the major PATRIOT hardware and software modifications (Depot Test Station, Reconfigurable Table Top Trainer, Configuration 3+ hardware, Crypto Modernization, and Post Deployment Build-8) to be trained.

• The extent to which the offeror’s proposed plan demonstrates the contractor’s approach to obtain necessary proprietary/technical data and hardware in order to develop course material and meet first year training schedule requirements.

The Technical Factor 1 Ratings/Colors. Excerpted below, the combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies of the offeror's proposal.

Adjectival/color rating depicts how well the offeror’s proposal meets the Technical sub-factor requirements.

3. Past Performance - Factor 2. 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. Recent contracts are defined as contracts performed, awarded, or completed during the past three years from the issue date of the RFP.

COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

Color Rating

Adjectival Rating

Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths.

Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies, Proposal is un-awardable.

a. Evaluation of past performance shall be in accordance with this plan utilizing the forms and questionnaires set forth in Section J, Attachment 0003 of the

RFP.

b. The Government will focus its inquiries on the offeror’s (and major subcontractor’s) record of performance as it relates to all solicitation requirements, including cost, schedule, performance and management of subcontractors. Major subcontractors for past performance factor 2 are defined as members of an offeror’s overall team who are expected to perform twenty (20) percent or more of the total contract value. A significant achievement, problem, or lack of relevant data in any element of the work can become an important consideration in the evaluation process.

Therefore, offerors will be reminded to include the most recent and relevant efforts that have been completed (within the past three 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 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 data in Government files or data obtained through interviews with personnel familiar with the contractor and their current and past performance under Federal, State or Local government or commercial contracts for same or similar services as compared to the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) 611519. Data used in conducting performance risk assessments shall not extend past three years prior to the issue date of the RFP, but may include performance data generated during the past three years without regard to the contract award date.

c. Offeror’s may submit no more than three (3) recent and relevant Government and/or commercial completed contracts for the prime offeror. In addition to the Offeror’s references, no more than two (2) recent and relevant completed contracts and/or project references may be submitted for each proposed major subcontractor.

The Offeror and its proposed subcontractors and or team partners, if any, will be assessed individually, and the results will then be assessed in totality to determine the Offeror’s Performance Confidence Rating based on demonstrated recent and relevant performance. The contractors and/or projects references must have been performed, awarded, or completed during the past three years, from the issue date of this RFP, and the Offeror’s are required to explain what aspects of the past performance are relevant to the PATRIOT NET RFP in 500 words or less for each submitted reference. 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.

d. 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 four aspects to the past performance evaluation:

recency, relevancy, quality and performance confidence assessment.

(i) RECENCY: The first aspect of the past performance evaluation is to assess the offeror’s past performance. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant. The evaluation of the recency assessment will be used in establishing the rating in the Past Performance Confidence assessment.

(ii) RELEVANCY: The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. Relevancy is not separately rated; however, 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 evaluation of relevancy will be used in establishing the rating in the Past Performance Confidence assessment.

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 essentially the same 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 aspect of the past performance evaluation is to establish the overall quality of the offerors past performance assessment. Documented results from Past Performance Questionnaires, interviews, CPARS, and other sources form the support and basis for this assessment. The evaluation for quality assessment will be used in establishing the rating in the past Performance Confidence Assessment.

(iv) PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT: The final step of the past performance evaluation is for the team to arrive at a single consensus performance confidence assessment for the offeror by selecting the most appropriate rating. Rating is based on the offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance. Below is the chart:

Performance Confidence Assessments

Rating Definition 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 high 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 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.

NOTE: If there are no past performance references meeting the descriptions above, the Offeror must so state that in their Past Performance submission of their proposal. Failure to include this information may be cause for rejection of an Offeror’s proposal as incomplete. In the case of offerors for which there is no information on past contract performance or where past contract performance information is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past contract performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv).) In this case, the offeror’s past performance is unknown and assigned a performance confidence rating of “neutral.” Although the SSEB may not rate an offeror that lacks recent, relevant past performance favorably or unfavorably with regard to past performance, the SSAC may recommend and the SSA may determine, that a “Substantial Confidence” or “Satisfactory Confidence” past performance rating is worth more than a “Neutral Confidence” past performance rating in a best value tradeoff as long as the determination is consistent with stated solicitation criteria.

4. Cost/Price – Factor 3. The resulting award will contain Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) and Cost Reimbursable No Fee (CRNF) line items. The Government will evaluate the realism of the offeror’s proposed cost for the cost reimbursable effort through a probable cost. If the Government evaluated cost is less than the proposed, the proposed becomes the probable cost. The Government will include the base program and all option years in the cost/price calculation. Should the Government determine proposed prices are unrealistically low (an indication of “buy-in”), the offer may be considered unacceptable and may be rejected on that basis. In evaluating the cost/price, the following criteria will be used:

a. Cost /Price Analysis: Adjectival ratings shall not be used for offerors cost proposal. Instead, cost proposals will be evaluated for fairness, reasonableness, compliance, completeness, errors, accounting system, cost realism, and fee. The cost/price evaluation assesses each offerors proposed cost/price for fairness, reasonableness, compliance, completeness, and cost realism of the proposed costs. The burden of proof for cost/price fairness, reasonableness, compliance, completeness and cost realism rests with the offeror. An assessment that the proposal is not fair, reasonable, compliant, complete or realistic will result in the offer being considered unacceptable for award.

b. Fairness and Reasonableness: For a cost/price to be fair and reasonable, it must represent a cost/price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. The offerors cost/price proposal will be evaluated, using one or more of the techniques described in FAR 15.4 in order to determine if it is fair and reasonable. Proposed rates and factors will be verified with the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) or other Cognizant Audit Agency via rate check or formal audit, as appropriate.

c. Compliance: The cost/price proposal will be reviewed for compliance with the requirement specified in Section L of the solicitation. The offerors rate tables and cost/price proposal and estimates will be assessed, as appropriate, for completeness, price reasonableness, and cost realism using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404. This will include an evaluation of the extent to which proposed costs indicate a clear understanding of the solicitation requirements, reflects a sound approach to satisfying those requirements and are consistent with the various methods of performance described in the offerors overall proposal. If the cost realism/price reasonableness assessment indicates the proposed cost/price is excessively high or low, the Government may consider the offeror to have a lack of understanding of the technical requirements and the proposal may be considered unreasonable and/or unrealistic and may be excluded from further consideration for award. The Government reserves the right to make award based upon cost/price in the event that the technical, past performance and Small Business Participation factors of all the offerors proposals are substantially the same.

d. Completeness: The rate tables and cost/price proposal and estimates submitted by the offeror will be evaluated for completeness and currency of information based upon the submission requirements contained in the solicitation instructions. In addition, the offerors price proposal and estimates including subcontractor(s) cost/price information will be evaluated based on the traceability of the cost proposal volume basis of estimates to the performance of the requirements addressed in the technical proposal.

e. Errors: The offeror’s overall cost/price proposal will be reviewed for errors.

The offeror may be given an opportunity to clarify certain aspects of their proposal at the sole discretion of the Contracting Officer.

f. Accounting System: The cognizant DCMA/DCAA office will verify evidence provided by the offeror of an adequate accounting system for accumulating and reporting incurred costs. If the offeror’s accounting system has not been audited to determine adequacy, the DCMA/DCAA will be requested to perform a pre-award survey of the accounting system and provide any current post award audit information to support an adequate accounting system status. The offeror must have an adequate accounting system as determined by the DCMA/DCAA prior to award of a cost type contract.

g. Cost Realism: A cost realism analysis will be performed on the Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) CLINS to determine whether specific estimated proposed cost elements are realistic for the work to be performed; reflect a clear understanding of contract requirements; and are consistent with the unique methods of performance described in the offeror’s technical proposal. The results of this evaluation will determine the probable cost of performance as it relates to the technical approach proposed by each offeror and will be utilized in the selection of the offer that provides the best value to the Government.

See FAR 15.404-1 (d), for a discussion of cost realism and probable cost.

The evaluated cost will be determined by adjusting each offeror’s proposed cost to reflect any additions or reductions in cost elements to realistic levels based on the results of the cost realism analysis. The probable cost may differ from the proposed cost and will reflect the Governments best estimate of the cost that is most likely to result from the offeror’s proposal. The cost realism analysis will also be used to evaluate the offeror’s understanding of contract technical requirements and the risk associated with the offeror’s technical proposal. Therefore, the offeror is advised to clearly show justification for unique practices that significantly lower costs.

h. Fee: The offeror’s proposed fee dollars will be utilized in the development of the Governments probable cost. The fee dollars shall not exceed the statutory limitation of FAR 15.404-4©(4)(i)©).

i. Evaluation: The Government will fully evaluate and negotiate the base effort and all options for award. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all the CPFF and CRNF CLINS for a total sum (contract ceiling). Evaluation of all options will not obligate the Government to exercise any option.

5. Small Business Participation – Factor 4: The Small Business Participation Factor will receive a color/adjectival rating. All offerors (both large and small businesses) will be evaluated on the level of proposed participation of U.S. small businesses in the performance of this acquisition (as small business prime Offerors or small business subcontractors) relative to the goals and objectives established herein.

The Government will evaluate (per PGI 215.304) the following:

a. The extent to which such firms, as defined in FAR Part 19, are specifically identified in proposals; How: Check to ensure if subcontractor identified as small business under specific NAICS code are indeed small ( and have a current SAM/self-certified small business registration.

b. The extent of commitment to use such firms (and enforceable commitments will be considered more favorably than non-enforceable ones); HOW: Identify signed teaming agreements or identify statement of intent to use/description of using specific small business subcontractors.

c. Identification of the complexity and variety of the work small firms are to perform per PWS; HOW: Description of which small business subs will perform portions of the PWS.

d. The extent of participation of small business prime offerors and small business subcontractors in terms of the percentage of the total contract value (not subcontracted dollars); HOW: Evaluate the prime in their percentage of participation of small business subs based on total contract value ( as noted now in Section L table) and the socio-economic categories being utilized.

e. The extent of overall management and oversight of subcontractors.

f. The extent of evidence (small business utilization) in support of small business goal attainment on similar work effort to ensure realistic and attainable goals can be met.

The Small Business Participation survey (found in Section J, Attachment 0004 of the RFP) along with addressing the bullets above will be our evaluation criteria for this factor.

The Small Business Participation Factor 4 Ratings/Colors. Excerpted below the rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies of the offeror's proposal.

Color Rating Description Blue Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low. Proposed target goals meet or exceed 20%.

Purple Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Proposed target goals are between 10% and 19%.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate. Proposed target goals are between 5% and 9%.

Yellow Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high. Proposed target goals are between 1% and 4%.