Attachment_0004_-_SECTION_M_EVALUATIONS_OF_PROPOSALS_10_March_2017.pdf

M.1. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD: This acquisition will use best value LPTA source selection process, IAW FAR 15.101-2; Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures, dated March 2016; and the Army Source Selection Supplement to the Department of Defense Source Selection Procedures, dated December 2012.

The Government will compare the offeror’s proposal to Section J – Attachment 0003, Section L – Instructions to Offerors in order to perform a compliance review. Any offeror’s proposal determined non-compliant per the terms noted in Section J – Attachment 0003, Section L – Instructions to Offerors will not be evaluated and will not be further considered for award. Award will be made using a LPTA Source Selection Process as described herein. Prior to the evaluation of the factors listed below, the Government will evaluate the acceptability of the offeror's Facility Clearance. Once determinations are made regarding the acceptability of the offerors' Facility Clearances, the following evaluation factors will be used to determine award: Technical ( inclusive of three subfactors: Resources Plan, Quality Control Plan and Transition Plan) and Price.

ACC-RI will make an award to the responsible contractor whose offer conforms to the solicitation and is determined to provide the best value to the Government. Proposals shall be evaluated for acceptability, but not ranked using the non-price factors/subfactors. In order to be considered awardable, there must be an “acceptable” rating in every non-price factor/subfactor.

M.2. NUMBER OF CONTRACT AWARD. ACC-RI intends to award a single FFP contract. The Government reserves the right to reject any or all proposals and make no award if such action is in the best interest of the Government.

M.3. COMPETITIVE RANGE & DISCUSSIONS. IAW FAR 15.306(c)(2), after evaluation of all proposals, the PCO may make a competitive range determination for purposes of efficiency.

M.4. SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENTS, FACILITY CLEARANCE, AND AFFIRMATIVE

STATEMENT AS TO KUWAIT OTHER HOST NATION LABOR LAW COMPLIANCE.

M.4.1. Facility Clearance. The PCO will verify that the Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) code(s) for the offeror and the teammates / subcontractors/ managing partner, Supplemental Documents & Facility Clearance, possess a SECRET Facility Clearance via the Defense Security Service (DSS) Industrial Security Facilities Database (ISFD) by the Request for Proposal (RFP) closing date. If the CAGE code for the offeror, managing partner, teammate or subcontractor provided does not possess a Secret Facility Clearance, the offeror will be found unacceptable. Unacceptable proposals will not be further evaluated and will not be further considered for award.

Offerors will be rated in accordance with the following definitions:

Acceptable: Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable: Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

M.4.2. The Government will review the completed solicitation and amendments for accurate completion and applicable signatures.

M.4.3. The Executive Summary will not be evaluated. Rather, it will be reviewed to assist evaluators in familiarizing themselves with the approach each offeror will use to meet the requirements of the PWS.

M.4.4. Per L.6.3 of the RFP, Offerors shall provide an affirmative statement in their Volume I submission that they understand and will fully comply with the current Kuwait and other host nation (Iraq and Afghanistan) labor laws. If the Offeror fails to provide the above statement, its proposal will not be further evaluated and will not be further considered for award.

M.5. EVALUATION FACTORS. For those offerors with an Acceptable Facility Clearance, the Government will evaluate the following factors and subfactors:

Factor 1: Technical Subfactor 1.1: Resources Plan Subfactor 1.2: Quality Control (QC) Plan Subfactor 1.3: Transition Plan Factor

Factor 2: Price

M.6. EVALUATION APPROACH. As outlined in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, dated March 2016, these factors and subfactors will be evaluated on an “acceptable” or “unacceptable” basis. These factors and subfactors will identify the minimum requirements that are key to successful contract performance and will evaluate price and the acceptability of products or services. Proposals will be evaluated for acceptability, but not ranked using the non-price factors/subfactors. In order to be considered awardable, there must be an “acceptable” rating in every non-price factor/subfactor. The overarching evaluation approach for all factors and subfactors is as follows:

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

- 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 devices 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.

M.7. EVALUATION APPROACH. The Government will evaluate Technical factors and subfactors using the following adjectival scale:

TECHNICAL ACCEPTABLE/UNACCEPTABLE RATINGS

Adjectival Rating Description Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

M.8. TECHNICAL FACTOR. The term “technical”, as used herein, refers to technical factors and subfactors (non-price), other than past performance. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposal to determine if the offeror provides a sound and well-developed technical approach that demonstrates a thorough understanding of the personnel, resources, and compliance requirements necessary to properly execute contract requirements in a safe, secure, efficient, and quality based manner. The Technical factor is divided into the following subfactors:

M.8.1. Technical Subfactor 1 – Resources Plan:

This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s proposed Resources Plan for all performance periods to include transition in to the place of performance, sustaining operations during the option year and transition out of the place of performance at contract expiration.

The offeror’s Resources Plan shall demonstrate that the offeror possesses the resources and/or the ability to recruit and retain the necessary staffing levels needed to meet the requirements of the PWS to perform this mission. The Resources Plan shall demonstrate the offeror’s plan of operation to successfully accomplish the requirements of the PWS.

M.8.2. Technical Subfactor 2 – QC Plan:

The offeror’s QC Plan shall demonstrate a sound technical approach, and a thorough understanding of quality methods and techniques for meeting performance standards and customer requirements. The QC plan shall include a comprehensive, independent plan for developing and maintaining the QC program. The QC Plan shall set forth internal and external quality control methods and policies for measuring, tracking, analyzing, reporting and implementing preventive and corrective actions required to ensure the quality performance standards required by the PWS and customer satisfaction is met. The QC Plan shall demonstrate a workable relationship, to include reporting requirements, between the offeror’s management personnel and the Government and specifies feedback mechanisms and corrective action methods for correcting defects in each functional area established in the PWS. The QC Plan shall demonstrate integration of QC system into daily operations and provides methods to be used for communications with the Government, measuring customer satisfaction, including a customer feedback program and a customer satisfaction reporting system.

M.8.3. Technical Subfactor 3 – Transition Plan:

The offeror’s Transition Plan demonstrates that the offeror has the ability to become fully operational in performing the requirements of the PWS within 90 days after award.

The offeror’s Transition Plan will be evaluated on the techniques proposed to remedy the technical or management issues that may impact transition to include but not limited to security clearance application/processing; and provide an acceptable mitigation plan for those technical or management issues. Proposed schedules and milestones will be evaluated to see if the included transition plan can realistically be implemented by the offeror to support a transition period not to exceed 90 days.

M.9. PRICE FACTOR. Factor 2: Price

a) The Total Evaluated Price is the sum of all CLINs for all years of performance plus an additional six-month extension IAW FAR 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services.

Offerors are not required to propose anything for the six-month extension period; the price will be calculated by the U.S. Government by taking 50% of each of the option year four CLIN prices. Award will be made on the basis of the lowest total evaluated price of those offers meeting the technical acceptability standards

b) Price will be evaluated based on price reasonableness; the Government may utilize any one or a combination of the price analysis techniques and procedures as described under FAR 15.404-1(b). The Government reserves the right to request other than certified cost or pricing data in the event that additional data would be required to determine price reasonableness.

c) Unbalanced Pricing: Offerors will be reviewed to identify any Unbalanced Pricing. In accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g), Unbalanced Pricing, a proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

d) Contractor Manpower Reporting CLINs 0005AA, 1005AA, 2005AA, 30005AA, 4005AA, and 5005AA are not separately priced.