Section M-W5168W-24-R-0009-FtCarson 23APR2024.pdf

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1.0 BASIS FOR AWARD

1.0.1 AWARD FOR ALL OF THE WORK

The Government intends to award one contract as a result of this solicitation. Offers received for less than the stated number of items listed in the Bid Schedule will be considered ineligible for award.

1.0.2 This is a source selection process with subjective tradeoffs between Past Performance and Price conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense

Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and the Army Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement

(AFARS). Award will be made to a single offeror who deemed responsible in accordance with the Federal

Acquisition Regulation, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements, and whose proposal, judged by an overall assessment of the evaluation criteria, and other considerations specified in this solicitation, and represents the best value to the Government. The best value is defined as: 1) The Offeror who presents a technically acceptable offer in the Mission Capability factor, and 2) Provides the most benefit to the Government based upon an integrated assessment between past performance and price. The technical capability factor will be assessed on an acceptable or unacceptable basis. A trade-off process, as described at FAR 15.101-1, will be used in making source selection with respect to the past performance and price factors. All evaluation factors other than price, when combined, are approximately equal to price. However, the greater equality of Past Performance ratings amongst

Offerors, the more important price becomes.

1.1 COMPLIANCE WITH TERMS AND CONDITIONS

Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information in the format specified in the proposal preparation instructions. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the Request for Proposal (RFP) may result in the

Offeror being removed from consideration for award. Any exception to the RFP’s terms and conditions must be fully explained and justified. Offerors are cautioned that taking an exception may render the offer ineligible for award.

1.2 REJECTION OF PROPOSALS

The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated and determined to be unacceptable or that it fails to comply with the contract terms and conditions.

1.3 DISCUSSIONS

As set forth in FAR Clause 52.215-1 Alternate I, (f)(4), the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract after conducting discussions with Offerors whose proposals have been determined to be within the competitive range. The competitive range may be limited for purposes of efficiency IAW FAR Part 15.306 (c)(2).

Therefore, the Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint.

Communications may be conducted to enhance the Government’s understanding of proposals; allow reasonable interpretation of the proposal; or facilitate the Government’s evaluation process. Any proposal(s) that the

Contracting Officer determines, with Source Selection Authority approval, to not be among the most highly rated proposals will be considered outside the competitive range and will be eliminated from further consideration.

Offeror(s) excluded from the competitive range will be informed in writing IAW FAR 15.503(a). Offerors remaining in the competitive range will be issued a final proposal revision request at the conclusion of discussions with the

Offerors remaining within the competitive range. The final proposal revisions will be evaluated in accordance with the evaluation criteria specified in this solicitation. The Government does not intend to conduct further discussions after receipt of the final proposal revisions. As such, Offerors in the competitive range are cautioned to submit their best offer for the final proposal revisions. However, if the Contracting Officer determines it necessary, the

Government may establish a revised competitive range, reopen, and conduct discussions again after receipt of final proposals, and then call for new final proposal revisions.

2.0 EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Evaluation criteria consists of Factors and Subfactors. The proposals will be evaluated under three evaluation factors:

Mission Capability, Past Performance and Price. Mission Capability have three sub-factors; Key Personnel, Workflow

Execution, and Organization and Staffing as shown follows:

Factor 1: Mission Capability

Sub-factor 1: Key Personnel

Sub-factor 2: Workflow Execution

Sub-factor 3: Organization and Staffing

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Price

2.1 FACTOR 1 - MISSION CAPABILITY

The Government’s technical evaluation team will evaluate the mission capability sub-factors on an Acceptable or

Unacceptable basis. Any sub-factor that is rated Unacceptable will result in the overall Mission Capability factor being determined Unacceptable. Only those proposals determined to be Acceptable for Factor 1: Mission Capability will be considered for award. Factor 1 and Sub-factors 1-3 will receive one of the adjectival ratings defined in

Table 1 below:

Table 1 – MISSION CAPABILITY RATINGS

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

2.1.1 SUBFACTOR 1 – KEY PERSONNEL. To be considered acceptable, the Offeror shall demonstrate the following:

a. Project Manager (PM) and the GFEBS PM Coordinator Lead. The proposed individual shall meet the requirements delineated in PWS paragraphs 2.1.11.1.1 and 2.1.11.1.2. Additionally, the proposal will be evaluated to ensure that the duties and responsibilities to be performed by the PM and GFEBS PM Coordinator Lead are commensurate with their qualifications and experience to ensure successful PWS execution. Commitment letter(s) will be evaluated for compliance with Section L of the solicitation.

2.1.2 SUBFACTOR 2 –WORKFLOW EXCECUTION. To be considered acceptable, the Offeror shall demonstrate the following:

• For PMO workload: the Offeror’s approach for developing their PMO Plan meets the requirements delineated in the PWS paragraph 2.2.4. Additionally, the Offeror’s approach for executing their PM plan utilizing GFEBS is effective and will ensure successful execution of all PMOs in accordance with the

PWS paragraph 2.2.4.

• For DMO workload: the Offeror’s approach for executing all DMOs from initial receipt to closeout in

GFEBS successfully meets the requirements of the overarching PWS, paragraph 2.2.3.

2.1.3 SUBFACTOR 3: ORGANIZATION AND STAFFING. To be considered acceptable, the Offeror shall demonstrate the following:

• Their organization structure is adequate to ensure successful execution and oversight of all functional areas of the PWS.

• Their staffing plan (number of personnel and skill mix) is adequate to successfully perform the PWS requirements.

2.2 FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE

2.2.1 The Past Performance evaluation will assess the relative risks associated with an Offeror’s (including parent or affiliated or predecessor company or Joint Venture prime partner companies) likelihood of success in performing the solicitation’s requirements as indicated by that Offeror’s record of past performance. Performance risk is assessed at the factor level after evaluating aspects of the Offeror’s recent past performance and focusing on performance that is relevant to the services being procured under this solicitation. Offerors are cautioned that in conducting the performance risk assessment, the Government is not limited to data provided in the Offeror’s proposal, and may also use data obtained from other sources, such as the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) or similar systems and State Department Watch Lists. The areas of Past Performance in CPARS to be reviewed in the evaluation process include:

• Business Relations

• Quality of Service

• Schedule

• Cost Control

• Customer Satisfaction

2.2.2 Performance Confidence Assessment Overview. The Government will conduct a Performance Confidence

Assessment of the Offeror’s (including parent or affiliated or predecessor company or Joint Venture prime partner companies) past performance to arrive at a confidence rating. The Performance Confidence Assessment represents the evaluation of an Offeror's past work record to assess the Government's confidence in the Offeror's probability of successfully performing as proposed. The Past Performance evaluation will be accomplished by reviewing aspects of an Offeror's recent and relevant Past Performance, focusing on and targeting performance which is relevant to the effort as it directly relates to the work being procured under this solicitation and as defined as relevant in Section M.

The past performance data shall be evaluated based on the demonstration of a successful history of past contract performance as outlined in sections 2.2.3 and 2.2.4.

2.2.3 Recency Assessment. An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the performance must be within five (5) years or less of the date of the solicitation. The Offeror shall provide up to five (5) completed examples of recent Past performance within the last five (5) years. Performance may be fully completed or in progress for twelve or more months. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

2.2.4 Relevancy Assessment. The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the services performed under those projects relate to this acquisition.

For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will be assessed.

Consideration will be given to criteria such as similarity, complexity, and diversity of tasks, type of effort, scope, value, and performance period. With respect to relevancy, more relevant past performance is a stronger predictor of future success and will have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance. A relevancy determination of the Offeror’s (including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s)) past performance will be made. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the Offeror, teaming partner or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The past performance information provided in the proposal and obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance. The Government will use the definitions in Table 2 when assessing recent, relevant contracts.

TABLE 2. 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.

2.2.5 Performance Confidence Assessment. The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well Offerors (including parent or affiliated or predecessor company or Joint Venture prime partner companies) have performed on referenced contracts. The past performance evaluation performed in support of a current source selection does not establish, create or change the existing record and history of the Offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the Offeror performed those past contracts. Requirements for considering history of small business utilization are outlined at FAR

15.304(c)(3)(ii) and DFARS 215.305(a)(2). In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use information provided in the Offeror’s Past Performance Volume, past performance questionnaires, in addition to information obtained from other sources available to the Government to include, but not limited to, the

Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) or other databases, interviews with Program

Managers, Contracting Officers, Fee Determining Officials, Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources. The burden of providing thorough, complete, and current past performance information as requested in this paragraph remains with the Offerors. The Past Performance Evaluation Team will review this past performance information and determine the quality and usefulness as it applies to performance confidence assessment.

More recent and relevant performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less recent or relevant effort. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the government than an “Unknown confidence” rating. Likewise, a more relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorable than a less relevant record of favorable performance.

Offerors without a record of recent/relevant past performance will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and will receive an "Unknown/Neutral" confidence rating in Table 3.

2.2.6 Performance Confidence Assessment Rating Scheme. In conducting a performance confidence assessment, each Offeror (including parent or affiliated or predecessor company or Joint Venture prime partner companies) shall be assigned one of the ratings in Table 3.

TABLE 3. PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

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.

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.

2.3 FACTOR 3 - PRICE

2.3.1 Price will not be scored or rated. All CLIN and banding prices proposed in Section B (including the Pricing

Matrix) will be evaluated for Price Reasonableness and Balance. Unbalanced pricing will be evaluated in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g), as applicable, to assess potential performance risk which could result in unreasonably high prices. Price reasonableness will be evaluated in accordance with the proposal analysis techniques described in FAR

15.404-1(b). Through this technique the Government will determine whether prices are reasonable, and balanced.

2.3.2 Options: The Government will evaluate its option to extend services (see FAR Clause 52.217-8) by adding one-half of the Offeror's price for last Option Period. Thus, the Offeror's total price for the purpose of evaluation will include the 60-month contract term and 1/2 of the last Option Period. The Offeror will not propose a price for the six-month period. The extension of services clause will be exercised only if necessary, utilizing the negotiated rates of the preceding period.

2.3.3 Total Evaluated Price (TEP): The Total Evaluated Price (TEP) shall be used for evaluation of price reasonableness and for the purpose of determining best value for award. The Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be the sum of the Base Period and each Option Period, including the phase-in period and the option to extend services as described in paragraph 2.3.2 of Section M. The Total Evaluated Price (TEP) shall be calculated as follows:

a. The sum of all CLINs contained in Section B of the solicitation, including the sum of the annual estimated cost, as provided by the government, for PWOs plus the applicable markup rate (reference Section L, paragraph 8.1.2).

b. One-half of the Offeror's price for last Option Period to evaluate the Governments option to extend services in accordance with FAR Clause 52.217-8.

2.3.4 Evaluation of the option(s) shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

2.3.5 Balanced Pricing. The government will evaluate all CLINs for balanced pricing to include sub-CLIN pricing contained in the Addendum to Section B (Pricing Matrix Attachment J) for maintenance services. Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items (including Base and Option Periods) is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the lack of balance poses a significant risk to the Government.

2.3.6 Completeness/Accuracy. The Offeror’s proposal shall comply with the Price volume instructions in the solicitation.

2.3.7 Reasonableness. A price is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business.

2.3.8 Contract Face Value. The face value of the contract shall be determined by the CLINs, and target bands identified in Column Q “Estimated Contract Value” of the Pricing Matrix(Attachment J). These amounts will be used to normalize the Offerors proposals in determining the amount that will be used for the face value of the contract.

3.0 RFP REQUIREMENTS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS

Offerors are required to meet all RFP requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as factors/subfactors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the RFP may result in the Offeror being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the RFP terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale.

3.1 Solicitation Documents: The following are required for award as a matter of solicitation compliance, but they are not included in the source selection evaluation or be considered in the basis for award. The offeror may be considered non-responsive if these documents are not submitted with their proposals.

SF33 (Solicitation, Offer and Award) – The Government will review each proposal to ensure Offerors fully completed the SF33, acknowledged all amendments and provided the cognizant point of contact information, to include identification of the individuals authorized to negotiate with the Government. Failure to meet these requirements will result in the proposal being deemed non-responsive and make the Offeror ineligible for award of a contract.

Representation, Certification, and Other Statements of Offerors – The Government will review the online representations and certifications of each offeror to ensure they are current and accurate. Failure of an offeror ensure online representations and certifications are current and accurate, to include small business certification under NAICS

561210, will result in the proposal being deemed non-responsive and make the offeror ineligible for award of a contract.

Warranty Plan – The Government will evaluate each proposal to ensure the Offeror has submitted a Warranty Plan that meets the requirements delineated in PWS 2.2.8. Failure to submit an acceptable plan, or negotiate an acceptable plan, will make the offeror ineligible for award of a contract.

Mission-Essential Contractor Services Plan - The Government will evaluate each proposal to ensure the offeror has submitted a Mission-Essential Contractor Services Plan that meets the requirements delineated in DFARS 252.237-

7024, Notice of Continuation of Essential Contractor Services. Failure to submit an acceptable Mission-Essential

Contractor Services Plan, or negotiate an acceptable plan, will make the offeror ineligible for award of a contract.

Property Management Plan (PMP) - The Government will evaluate each proposal to ensure the Offeror has submitted a

PMP that meets the requirements delineated in FAR 52.245-1. Offerors shall submit a PMP IAW FAR Clause 52.245-

1, Government Property. The PMP is to provide an overview of “how” the contractor intends to manage Government

Property in its possession in accordance with FAR 52.245-1 requirements. The PMP shall also include any customary commercial practices, voluntary consensus standards, or industry leading practices the contractor plans to use in managing Government Property. Failure to submit an acceptable PMP, or negotiate an acceptable plan, will make the offeror ineligible for award of a contract.

Labor Dispute Contingency Plan- The Government will evaluate each proposal to ensure the Offeror has submitted a plan that meets the requirements delineated in PWS 2.5.6.4. Failure to submit an acceptable plan, or negotiate an acceptable plan, will make the offeror ineligible for award of a contract.