Attachment_0003_Evaluation_UC_Soft_Client_14_Nov_2016.pdf

Attachment 0003 14 Nov 2016

ATTACHMENT 0003- EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1 GENERAL

1.1. Competition and Basis for Award

a. The USG is conducting this competition on a full and open basis in accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 6.100 and 15.101-1 Best Value

Continuum, Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures, and the

Army Supplement to the DoD Source Selection Procedures. A single contract award will be made to the Offeror who is determined to be best value to the USG

IAW the criteria set forth in this solicitation. Awarded contract will be a Firm-

Fixed Price (FFP) contract consisting of one (1) base year, with four (4) one-year options.

b. Contract award will be made to that Offeror whose proposal offers the best overall value to the USG based on an integrated assessment of the non-price and price related factors. The evaluation will be conducted in a two phase approach, with the first phase being rated on an acceptable/unacceptable rating criteria.

Offerors that receive a rating of “Acceptable” in the first phase (Phase One), will be evaluated in the second phase (Phase Two) using a best value with tradeoff approach). Phase Two factors include: Technical, Past Performance, Small

Business Participation and Price. The non-price factors will be rated using color coding and adjectival scales. Price will be evaluated, but the factor will not receive a color coded adjectival rating.

c. As this is a best value procurement, the USG reserves the right to make an award to an Offeror other than the lowest priced Offeror or the highest rated proposal. In the event, if the non-price factors are evaluated as comparatively equal between two or more Offerors, the Price factor may become the determining factor for award.

d. Unless all offers are rejected, award will be made to the responsible Offeror whose offer, conforming to the solicitation, is determined to be the best overall value to the USG, price and other factors considered. Within the best value continuum, the USG will employ a “Price/Technical Tradeoff” analysis of price and non-price factors (FAR 15.101-1) in evaluating the proposals submitted.

Award is subject to the availability of funds in accordance with 52.232-18.

e. To receive consideration for award, an adjectival rating of at least “Acceptable” must be achieved for Volume III-Technical and Volume V-Small Business

Participation. A rating of at least Satisfactory must be achieved for Volume IV-

Past Performance. The adjectival ratings are defined in each Phase below. An award will not be made to any Offeror that has an unresolved deficiency in any factor.

f. All compliant proposals will be subject to evaluation by a USG Source Section

Team. Proposal content will be evaluated to determine the degree and extent to which the requirements set forth in the solicitation are satisfied. Assumptions will not be made by USG evaluators regarding areas not defined in the Offeror’s submitted proposal, with the exception of Past Performance where data extrinsic to an Offeror’s proposal may be considered.

g. Contract award will be determined based upon the evaluation of each Offeror’s complete proposal against the evaluation criteria identified below.

h. The USG intends to evaluate proposals and make award without discussions.

However, if determined to be necessary by the USG, a competitive range consisting of the most highly rated proposals may be established FAR 15.306 (c).

The USG may engage in communications under FAR 15.306(b) as necessary to determine which Offerors shall remain and be included within the Competitive range. The competitive range, if necessary, will be established taking into account that a single award will be made. Any proposal which does not have a realistic chance of receiving award will not be included in the competitive range.

i. In the event a competitive range is established, the USG will conduct discussions with all Offerors in the competitive range. Discussions will be conducted IAW

FAR 15.306(d). At the conclusion of discussions, the USG will request final revised proposals from all remaining Offerors. Offerors determined not within the competitive range will be notified of this decision, IAW FAR 15.503. If during discussions it is determined that an Offeror’s proposal shall no longer be included in the competitive range, the USG reserves the right to eliminate the proposal from consideration for award and will notify the Offeror of this decision IAW FAR

15.503.

j. At time of award, the USG will fund CLIN 0001 for 100,000 users and CLIN 0003 for 15,000 users at the per user price provided in the price model Attachment

0005. CLINs 0005 Task ONE, CLIN 0006 Task ONE, CLIN 0007 Task ONE, and

CLIN 0008 Task ONE will also be funded at time of award at the firm fixed prices proposed.

The Government reserves the right to fund additional users on CLINs 0001 and

0003 at time of award. In addition, the Government reserves the right to fund

CLIN 0009 Task One, CLIN 0010 Task One and CLIN 0011 Task One at time of award.

After contract Award, CLINs 0001 and 0003 will be funded as users are on-boarded on CLINs 0002 and 0004, but the Government reserves the right to fund

CLINS 0001 and 0003 further without on-boarding users on CLINS 0002 and

0004. As users are on-boarded on CLINS 0002 and 0004, the USG does not have to fund CLINS 0001 and 0003, until the USG exceeds the users funded at time of award. The price funded per user will be done on a range basis. Example if 50,000 users are funded 1 Oct 2016 users will be funded at price per user for that range and option year. If the USG adds an additional 100,000 users during the same option year, the USG will fund the additional users at the price per user for the 150,000 range. As the USG adds users within the same option year it will move to the user price in the appropriate range for users funded that year.

Upon achievement of IOC for CLIN 0001), the Government may fund users for services under CLIN 0002. Upon achievement of IOC for CLIN 0003, the

Government may fund users for services under CLIN 0004. CLINs 0002 and

0004 will be funded as users are on-boarded for services. The Government may fund users as required for these CLINS, in the base year and future option years.

These CLINs will be funded, as users are identified or required, therefore may be

“optioned” multiple times within a single option year or over the life of the contract. Each user will be fully funded when on-boarded for services. The price funded per user will be done on a range basis. Example if 50,000 users are funded 1 Oct 2016 users will be funded at price per user for that range and option year. If the USG adds an additional 100,000 users during the same option year, the USG will fund users at the price per user for the 150,000 range. As the

USG adds users within the same option year it will move to the user price in the appropriate range for users funded that year. In the event users are optioned multiple times during a single option year, the price per user will be pro-rated to allow all services optioned to expire at the same time. Example if 50,000 users are funded on 1 Oct 2016 their services would expire 30 Sep 2017. If an additional 50,000 users are funded on 1 January 2017, their services would also expire on 30 Sep 2017. The 50,000 users funded on 1 January 2017, would have their price per user (ppu) prorated to allow services of all funded users to expire at the same time; an example of the mathematical equation is PPU *.75.

CLINs 0005 Task TWO, CLIN 0006 Task TWO, CLIN 0007 Task TWO, CLIN

0008 Task TWO and CLIN 0011 Task TWO are options which will be funded, as required, in future options years for sustainment. These tasks can be optioned and funded each option year.

CLINs 0009 Task ONE, 0010 Task ONE, and 0011 Task One are optional, and the USG may fund at a later date within the base year or in a future option year.

CLIN 0009 Task ONE may be optioned up to 4 times over the life of the contract

(base + four option years). CLIN 0009 Task TWO may be optioned up to four times for each option year for each operability point that has been optioned under

CLIN 0009 Task ONE.

CLIN 0010 Task ONE will be funded by user and may be funded during the year, as users are identified or required, therefore may be “optioned” multiple times within a single option year and over the life of the contract. Each user will be fully funded. CLIN 0010 Task TWO will be funded by user and may be funded during the year, as users are identified or required, therefore may be “optioned” multiple times within a single option year and over the life of the contract. Each user will be fully funded. The price funded per user will be done on a range basis.

Example if 50,000 users are funded 1 Oct 2016 users will be funded at price per user for that range and option year. If the USG adds an additional 100,000 users during the same option year, the USG will fund additional users at the price per user for the 150,000 range. As the USG adds users within the same option year it will move to the user price in the appropriate range for users funded that year.

All CLINs will be optioned and funded based on prices listed in Attachment 0005, Price Model, which will be incorporated into resulting contract.

2 Factors to Be Evaluated

Phase One Volume I - Security and Experience

i. Gate 1 - Unified Capabilities (UC) Approved Products List (APL)

ii. Gate 2 - DoD Provisional Authorization (PA)

iii. Gate 3 - Experience

Offerors must achieve a rating of acceptable in ALL three gates to be evaluated under Phase Two.

Volume II- Contractual Documentation

No rating will be assigned to this Volume. Will be reviewed for compliance.

Phase Two Volume III - Factor 1 Technical Approach

i. Sub-factor I – System Architecture

ii. Sub-factor II – Service Capability

Sub-factor 1 is more important than Sub-factor 2. Factor 1 is significantly more important than Factor 2, 3, and 4.

Volume IV - Factor 2 Past Performance

Factor 2 is slightly more important than Factor 3 and Factor 4.

Volume V - Factor 3 Small Business Participation

Factor 3 is slightly more important than Factor 4.

Volume VI - Factor 4 Price

When Factor 1, 2, and 3 are combined, they are significantly more important than Factor 4.

2.1 Relative Order of Importance Terminology

2.1.1 Phase Two consists of four factors. In order to provide the Offeror with an understanding of the significance assigned by the USG, the factors are assigned a relative order of importance. The following terminology is used:

Significantly More Important- The factor is substantially more important than another factor. The factor is given more consideration than another factor.

Slightly More Important- The factor is greater in value than another factor, but not as much as a significantly more important factor. The factor is given more consideration than another factor.

3 Evaluation Approach

The USG may render any proposal unacceptable which:

Merely offers to perform work according to the solicitation terms or fails to present more than a statement indicating its capability to comply with the SOLICITATION terms without support and elaboration as specified in Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Offerors of this Solicitation.

Reflects an inherent lack of technical competence or a failure to comprehend the complexity and risks required to perform the solicitation requirements in relation to the proposed prices.

Is unbalanced within the meaning of FAR Part 15, or is unbalanced as to prices for the first option period and for subsequent option periods where prices are significantly high or low for one given period versus another period.

Fails to meaningfully respond to the Instructions specified in Instructions to Offerors of this solicitation.

Cross references from one volume to another volume. All volumes shall be complete with no cross-referencing between volumes. The Government may cross reference volumes in its evaluation, in the event it will provide clarification or resolve discrepancies, i.e. pricing needs confirmation that labor categories that were referenced in price proposal were referenced in technical proposal, to ensure that both volumes are consistent.

Any proposal that is evaluated as unacceptable in terms of any of the evaluation factors may be rejected for such reasons. Furthermore, any significant inconsistency between proposed Technical, Past Performance, Small Business Participation and Price submitted, if unexplained, may be grounds for rejection of the proposal due to an Offeror’s misunderstanding of the work required or an inability to perform any resultant work under the contract. The USG will evaluate each proposal strictly IAW it’s content and will not assume that performance will include areas not specified in the Offeror’s proposal.

3.1. Phase One

a. All proposals will be initially evaluated for compliance with the instructions of the solicitation. Offerors will be eliminated for failing to comply with any mandatory instructions as indicated in the solicitation (all phases).

b. Offerors who submitted proposals in accordance with instructions and have met the compliance requirements, will have its Phase One proposal evaluated by an evaluation team. The USG may engage in clarifications and/or communications with Offerors in Phase One IAW FAR 15.306(a) and (b).

c. The USG will review the submitted information in Volume I- Phase One Security and Experience for compliance with the criteria in Attachment 0002 and evaluate it on an acceptable/unacceptable basis. A proposal that receives an unacceptable rating in any gate under Phase One-Volume I, will render the entire proposal ineligible for award and will not be evaluated further or considered for award. For Offerors rated “Acceptable” in all gates of Phase

One-Volume I, will have its proposal evaluated in Phase Two, in accordance with the evaluation criteria stated in Evaluation Factor for Award of the solicitation.

Phase One will be rated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis as follows:

Acceptable: Proposal meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

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

3.1.1. Gate 1 - Unified Capabilities (UC) Approved Products List (APL)

The Offerors proposal and documentation submitted will be evaluated to determine that the proposed solution is listed on the DoD UC APL as an approved UC Collaboration Product (UCCP). The USG will use the Defense Information Systems Agency Approved Products List Integrated Tracking System and the supporting date provided in the Offeror’s proposal to verify that the Offeror’s solution is UC APL UCCP and/or LSC and/or ESC approved. If a solution is proposed that does not meet the UC APL Certification, it will be determined unacceptable. Only solutions meeting the UC APL Certification will be determined acceptable.

3.1.2. Gate 2 - DoD Provisional Authorization (PA)

For Cloud Based Solutions: If the Offeror submits a Provisional Authorization certification for its specific UC soft-client cloud service offering at Impact Levels 5 and 6, the proposal will be deemed acceptable.

If the proposed solution does not have the PA certifications, the Government will perform a quick-look review of the 3PAO-produced RAR package. The documentation package will be reviewed for completeness and the likelihood that the FedRAMP and FedRAMP+ requirements are or can be met, resulting in the required DoD PA IL 5 within 180 days of contract award. The proposed schedule will be evaluated to ensure that the Offeror has included all dependencies, events and workflows in order to obtain IL 5 within 180 days of contract award and IL 6 by IOC (C+440).

Proposals that do not submit a 3PAO-produced RAR with supporting Artifacts or proposals that do not pass the quick look review will be rejected, and the Offeror's proposal will be given no further consideration, and the proposal volumes will not be opened or proceed into the source selection process.

If the Offeror submits a Third Party Assessment Organization (3PAO) Readiness Assessment Report (RAR) that demonstrates the Offeror’s ability to achieve a PA at IL 5 within 180 days of contract award, and a schedule which demonstrates it can obtain an IL 5 within 180 days of contract award and IL 6 by IOC (C+440 days) to include the appropriate review times, the proposal will be deemed acceptable. Proposals which cannot demonstrate it can meet the PA requirements for IL 5 within 180 days of award and IL 6 by IOC or does not include the appropriate dependencies, events, and workflows, to include review times, will be considered unacceptable.

For Non-Cloud Based Solutions: If the Offeror submits Risk Management (RMF) authorizations/accreditations for its NIPR and SIPR solution, the proposal will be deemed acceptable.

If the proposed solution has not obtained RMF authorizations/accreditations the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed approach and schedule for obtaining these authorizations/accreditations for NIPR and SIPR in the required timeframe. The proposed approach and schedule will be evaluated to ensure that the Offeror has included all the dependencies, events, and workflows to include all 6 steps to accomplish RMF and review timeframes.

Proposals and/or schedules which demonstrate the Offeror’s ability to achieve appropriate RMF authorizations/accreditations for NIPR and for SIPR in the required timeframe, will be deemed acceptable. Proposals and/or schedules which cannot demonstrate that the Offeror has the ability to achieve appropriate RMF authorizations/accreditations for NIPR and SIPR in the required timeframe, will be deemed unacceptable.

For Hybrid Solutions: For the portion of an Offeror’s solution which is cloud based, it will be evaluated and rated in the same manner as Cloud Based Solutions (see above).

For the Portion of an Offeror’s solution that is non-cloud based, it will be evaluated and rated in the same manner as non-cloud based solutions noted (see above). Hybrid solutions have to be considered acceptable on both cloud and non-cloud based evaluations to be determined Acceptable. Hybrid solutions which are considered unacceptable on either portion (cloud or non-cloud) will be determined unacceptable.

3.1.3. Gate 3 - Experience

The Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated on its experience deploying UC services to a minimum user base of 100,000, within a 36 month period in blocks of 10,000 to 40,000 users. The USG will evaluate the examples submitted by the Offeror to ascertain that the Offeror has the necessary experience to perform the services required under this effort. Security levels of the deployments will be evaluated in order to ascertain the Offeror and its partners have experience with providing these services with unique security requirements which have been modified from the original commercial offering of the services. Offerors who fail to demonstrate experience at the required deployment level will be determined unacceptable. Only Offerors who are able to demonstrate experience at the required levels will be considered acceptable.

3.1.4 Volume II Contractual Documents

The content of this Volume will be reviewed to determine if it is compliant with and responsive to the terms and conditions of the SOLICITATION. Any deviations or non-compliances discovered in the compliance review may result in the proposal being rejected. The content of this Volume will not be included in the best value decision. The USG may incorporate selected information from the successful offeror’s proposal, including information contained in Volume II, into the awarded contract.

3.2. Volume III Phase Two

3.2.1 Factor 1 Technical Approach

All Offeror’s proposed assumptions will be reviewed for compliance with the UC Soft Client requirements, feasibility, and risk.

The factor includes an assessment and evaluation of Volume III-Technical Approach and the following attachments:

Offeror’s proposed Performance Work Statement (PWS) to include Performance

Requirements Summary (PRS), which shall be aligned with the USG Provided

Statement of Objectives (SOO)

Offeror’s proposed Milestone Schedule

Offeror’s proposed Service Level Agreement (SLA)

In the technical factor, technical and risk evaluation will be combined and assigned a single rating. Risk will be assessed as an inherent part of the Technical Factor to form the basis of the factor rating. See 3.2.4 for the definitions of the combined technical/risk ratings.

The USG will assess the Offeror’s Volume III-Technical Approach proposal and attachments for feasibility, service level performance, schedule, and risk management in accordance with:

a. The proposed approach is feasible and the end results are achievable and provide the USG with a high level of confidence of successful completion

b. The proposed performance is based upon proven products and techniques to deliver a Commercially Owed and Commercially Operated UC Soft Client Service

c. The proposed schedule can be completed with little risk to the USG and defines the UC Soft Client constraints.

d. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the Offeror understands all aspects involved in meeting the requirements; and the extent to which uncertainties are identified and resolutions proposed.

e. The USG will evaluate proposals to determine compliance with all requirements of the solicitation, including any attachments and exhibits. It will also evaluate proposals for unique, creative and innovative methods, processes, and/or solutions that are beneficial to the USG and demonstrate responsiveness to customer needs.

f. Adequacy of Response/Completeness - The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the Offerors methods and approach have adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirements. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which each requirement has been addressed in accordance with the proposal submission section of the solicitation.

3.2.1.1 Sub-factor I System Architecture:

a. The Offerors solution, including interfaces and technical approach to design, integrate, test, deploy, and support the solution to meet objectives will be evaluated to determine if the objectives stated in the SOO are being achieved and the approach is realistic and low risk. The Offerors Technical Approach will be evaluated on the basis of innovation evident in the proposed methods and techniques. The Offerors Technical Approach will be evaluated on the basis of the soundness and feasibility of the proposed approach and the effectiveness of the methods and techniques provided. The approach will be evaluated to ascertain the capability to meet DoD System and Cyber Security requirements in the design, deployment, integration, and continuing performance. The Technical

Approach will be assessed to determine if it is adaptable to implement emerging requirements and to determine what, if any, level of risks will be posed to the

USG.

b. The Offeror's proposed hosting solution will be evaluated to determine that it is in compliance with the Cloud Computing SRG version 1R2 (section 5.2.1.1.) for

Cloud based solutions. For non-cloud solutions the hosting solution will be evaluated to determine that it is in compliance with DoDI 8500.01 and 8510.01

Risk Management Framework (RMF).For hybrid solutions the hosting solution will be evaluated to determine that it is in compliance with both the SRG and the

DoDI RMF. The system architecture will be reviewed for completeness that demonstrates knowledge of the DoD environment. The proposal will be evaluated to determine if the proposed solution is capable of being hosted in classified and unclassified environments as proposed and is able to meet the performance requirements. The proposal will be evaluated to determine what risks and performance risks the Offeror's proposed approach for hosting CONUS and OCONUS requirements brings to the USG and overall success in meeting requirements. It will be evaluated to determine if it is comprehensive, feasible, realistic, and achievable.

c. If Offeror has proposed an on-premise hosting solution, the USG will evaluate the

NIPRnet and SIPRnet requirements for floor space, rack space, physical security/separation, high-density compute/cooling environments, per rack power requirements, bandwidth requirements, physical access requirements, remote management, and networking environment to determine if it is feasible, realistic, and what risks it brings to the USG as far as price and availability to accommodate within a USG facility and if the proposed solution is feasible and meets the security requirements. The proposal will be evaluated for off premise and on premise hosting solutions on how the hosting environment will operate within the Cloud Access Point (for cloud based and hybrid solutions), if the approach is feasible, and what risks it presents. The Offeror's proposal will be evaluated on how the proposed service levels will be maintained during performance while being hosted in either off-premise or on-premise solutions as proposed, it will be looked at for feasibility, benefit and risks it brings to the USG.

d. The USG will evaluate the Offeror’s PSTN integration proposal to determine that its approach, methodology and the tools it plans to employ demonstrate that the

Offeror can successfully execute this task. The USG will evaluate the PSTN integration approach to determine feasibility, completeness, and compliance with the Unified Capabilities Requirements.

e. If an Offeror is proposing the use of Army Local Session Controllers in the delivery of the service globally, its plan that addresses client licensing will be evaluated. The plan will be evaluated for feasibility, risk and if it is achievable to provide a standardized enterprise service, allows for portability of licenses and how its approach to technical refresh will alleviate the Army’s investment in new equipment.

3.2.1.2 Sub-factor 2 Service Capability:

a. The proposal will be evaluated to ensure that all the minimum requirements have been addressed sufficiently on the Service Level Agreement. The content of the

SLA will be evaluated to ensure that the Offeror is providing an SLA that is realistic, and low risk to the USG. The SLA will be evaluated to determine that the Offeror can maintain and provide the highest level of service during performance. The overall SLA will be evaluated to determine what level of service and reliability the Offeror will be provide to the USG. The overall SLA will be evaluated for feasibility and risk to the USG. The SLA will be evaluated to determine the value and benefit it brings to the USG during performance of the requirement.

b. The Offeror's proposal will be evaluated to determine if its plan to achieve and maintain at a minimum of 99.9% availability of services is realistic, achievable, and what risks it presents.

c. The Performance work statement will be evaluated to ensure completeness and the tasks reflected in the PWS provides a complete list of tasks to reflect the

Offeror's technical approach and requirements of the solicitation. The USG will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed training approach to determine whether Offeror’s proposed training approach is feasible, low risk, and achievable to successfully complete the USG’s requirements. The PWS will be evaluated to ensure it doesn't repeat statements back to the USG, but provides comprehensive information on how the Offeror will perform and provide the objectives of the

SOO and requirements of the solicitation. The PWS will be evaluated to ensure the Offeror is providing the required capabilities and how its approach is realistic and feasible, to include risk. The Offeror's approach to handling USG Furnished

Property will be evaluated to ensure the Offeror is in compliance with requirements and appropriate regulations. The performance requirements summary will be evaluated to ensure completeness and compliance with the

Unified Capabilities Requirements. The USG will evaluate the PWS to ensure that it identifies the transfer of data and licenses to the USG contract close out is complete and realistic and to ensure it is low risk.

d. The proposed schedule and milestones will be evaluated to determine if the proposed PA and/or RMF, survey, integration, deployment and implementation approach is feasible, realistic, and achievable for the requirement and if it will provide a low schedule risk solution to the USG. The Offeror's milestone schedule will be evaluated through analysis of activates, design, security, test, deployment, training, integration, and operations. The anticipated activates, work streams, deliverables, and milestones planned for the proposed solution to meet the proposed IOC and FOC requirements will be analyzed and evaluated. The schedule will be evaluated based on proven and mature processes. A schedule that provides capabilities earlier than required while maintaining low risk is preferred. The schedule will be evaluated to the extent it represents the activities over the period of performance based on the SOO, Offeror's PWS, and the requirements of the solicitation. The schedule will be evaluated for accuracy and for required activities for the contractor and the USG and how it demonstrates to the evaluation team a thorough understanding of the requirement and a low risk proposal.

e. The Offeror’s proposed approach to staffing and managing its solution and personnel, will be evaluated to determine if it is feasible, low risk, and if it is achievable; to successfully complete the USG’s requirement and maintain the

SLA. The proposed staffing solution for on premise locations in OCONUS will be evaluated to determine if it is feasible, low risk, and if it is achievable; to successfully complete the USG’s requirement and maintain the SLA.

f. The Offeror’s proposed site survey approach will be evaluated to determine if it is feasible, low risk, and if it is achievable. It will be evaluated to ensure that the

Offeror will staff the survey with appropriate personnel to ensure that repeat surveys do not need to take place, that it will be done in a manner that will not cause the Government significant burden, and that it will not impact schedule. It will be evaluated to ensure that the Offeror has provided how it will address and mitigate risk in order to maintain schedule, if proposed solution is not conducive to the proposed locations.

3.2.1.3 Factor 1 Technical Approach Evaluation Ratings and Definitions

A combined technical/risk rating will be assigned to Volume I-Factor 1 Technical Approach proposal. A combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies of a proposal.

The USG will use the following adjectival rating definitions in the evaluation of the Volume III-Factor 1 Technical Approach will use a combined Technical/Risk Rating in accordance with DoD Source Selection Procedures. Each Technical/Risk Sub-factor will receive an Adjectival Rating which will then be combined into one singular overall Factor rating. Technical Factor Rating Definitions are provided below:

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.

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.

3.2.2 FACTOR 2- PAST PERFORMANCE

3.2.2.1 Past performance information is evaluated as a predictor of future contract performance. The USG will assess the degree of confidence it has that the Offeror will successfully complete the requirements of the UC Soft Client based on the Offeror's demonstrated record of recent, relevant performance.

Recent Performance: See.3.3.1 Attachment 0002 - Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors for the Past Performance Factor 2.

Relevant Performance: See 3.3.1 - Attachment 0002 - Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to

Offerors for the Past Performance Factor 2.

3.2.2.2 The USG may consider the recency, degree of relevance, source, and context of the past performance information it evaluates as well as quality, general trends in performance, and demonstrated corrective actions. A significant achievement, problem, problem resolution, or lack of relevant data in any element can become an important consideration in the assessment process. A negative finding in any element may result in a lower Overall Past Performance Confidence Assessment Rating.

3.2.2.3 Absent any recent and relevant past performance history, the Offeror will be assigned an “Neutral Confidence Past Performance Rating" and its proposal will not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably on past performance.

3.2.2.4 In conducting the past performance evaluation, the USG may use information obtained from other sources, or may use information with regard to other contracts performed by the Offeror of which it has knowledge, whether or not those contracts are disclosed to the USG by the Offeror.

3.2.2.5 The relevancy of past performance will be determined as follows:

Adjectival Rating

Narrative Description

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.

3.2.2.6 The Offeror’s Past Performance will be rated using the following ratings for confidence:

Rating

Narrative 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.

3.2.2.7 The USG is not required to interview all points of contact identified by the Offeror.

It is the responsibility of the Offeror to provide complete past performance information and thorough explanations as required by the Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Offerors. The USG is not obliged to make another request for the required information.

3.2.3 FACTOR 3 - SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION

3.2.3.1 Small Business Participation is evaluated in order to support the Government policy that Small Businesses be provided maximum practicable opportunities in Government acquisitions. The Government will evaluate the degree to which the Offeror’s Small Business Participation Plan demonstrates the Offeror’s commitment to maximizing opportunities for small businesses. The Government will consider both the degree to which an Offeror meets or exceeds any single socio-economic category, as well as the number of socio-economic categories that an Offeror meets or exceeds.

The Government will consider two areas:

a. Proposed Small Business Participation

b. Commitment to Small Business

3.2.3.2 The Government has established the following objectives for this procurement, based on total contract value (including options):

Small Business: 8% Small Disadvantaged Business: 2% Women Owned Small Business: 3% HUBZone Certified Small Business: 1% Veteran Owned Small Business goal: 3% Service Disabled veteran Owned Small Business: 2%

3.2.3.2.1 The Offeror’s proposed percentage of participation (goals) identified in the

Small Business Participation Attachment 0004 will be evaluated against the

Government’s Objective for each socio-economic category. The Government will compare the Offeror’s proposed percentage of participation for each category to the

Government’s objective. The proposed plan will also be evaluated on the extent of participation for multiple socio-economic categories. In addition, the proposed plan will evaluated with regard to the percentage of total dollars going to Small Businesses.

Note: Small business primes may achieve small business participation goals through their own performance/participation as a prime and also through subcontracting to other small businesses. Offeror who proposes little or no participation for multiple socio-economic categories may be viewed by the Government as having a lack of commitment to small businesses.

3.2.3.3 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s written statement of its established procedures for timely payments to small business subcontractors in accordance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns for those recent contracts for which it was required (contracts awarded within the past three years from the closing date of this solicitation). If the Offeror has no historical information, the proposal will be evaluated without regard to this paragraph.

3.2.3.3.1 For Other than Small Businesses, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s compliance with reporting requirements on Individual Subcontracting Reports (ISRs) and achievement on each goal stated within the subcontracting plan as reported on each ISR, in accordance with FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan for those recent contracts under which it was required (contracts awarded within the past three years from the closing date of this solicitation). If the Offeror has no historical information, the proposal will be evaluated without regard to this paragraph.

3.2.4. The USG will develop one overall Small Business Participation rating for each Offeror based on the evaluation criteria described above and assign an adjectival Small Business Participation Rating from the table below.

Color Rating

Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Green Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

3.2.4 FACTOR 4 PRICE

3.2.4.1 Price will be an evaluated factor; however, it will not be adjectively scored. The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) requires that contracts be awarded at prices that are fair and reasonable. The USG will evaluate and access the Price Volume VI, to determine price reasonableness. Additional analysis techniques may be used as determined necessary by the Contracting Officer.

3.2.4.2 The USG will evaluate price reasonableness In Accordance With (IAW) FAR 15.404-1(b), the USG may use any one or a combination of the techniques listed at FAR 15.404-1(b) (2) to determine the price fair and reasonable. The USG expects adequate price competition (FAR 15.404-1(b) (2) (i), therefore, a comparison will be made of total evaluated prices. However, the USG also reserves the right to require submission of data other than certified cost or pricing data adequate to determine the reasonableness of an offer.

3.2.4.3 As part of the evaluation, proposals may 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 USG.

3.2.4.4 For evaluation purposes, the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be calculated as follows:

3.2.4.5 The Soft Client Pricing Model (Attachment 0005) Tabs labeled Base Year, OY 1, OY 2, OY 3, and OY 4 shall multiply the offeror proposed unit prices by the high-end of the USG provided respective quantity ranges and weightings for CLINs 0001, 0002, 0003, 0004, and 0010. The product of the unit prices multiplied by the high-end quantity range and weighting is the Extended Price. TASK ONE and TWO CLINs 0005, 0006, 0007, 0008, 0009, and 0011 represent a proposed Firm-Fixed-Price per year.

3.2.4.6 The Soft Client Pricing Model (Attachment 0005) Summary Tab sums the Base Year, OY 1, OY 2, OY 3, and OY 4 by Extended Prices for each CLIN 0001, 0002, 0003, 0004, and 0010 TASK ONE and TWO (when applicable) to obtain the proposed total amounts. The Summary Tab sums the Base Year, OY 1, OY 2, OY 3, and OY 4 for all CLINs and applicable Tasks. CLINs 0012 and 0013 are Not Separately Priced. The Proposed Total Amounts by CLIN are summed to calculate the Total Evaluated Price

4 Definitions

Adverse Past Performance - Past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating from sources where the information is from other than formal rating systems such as “PPIRS” or “FAPPIS.”

Best Value- means the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the USG’s estimation provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirements.

Clarifications- are limited exchanges between the USG and Offerors that may occur when award without discussion is contemplated

Communications- are exchanges, between the USG and Offerors, after receipt of proposals, leading to establishment of the Competitive Range

Competitive Range- See FAR 15.306 (c)

Deficiency - is a material failure of a proposal to meet a USG requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

Discussions- are exchanges (i.e. negotiations) in a competitive environment that are undertaken with the intent of allowing the Offeror to revise its proposal. Discussions take place after the establishment of the competitive range.

Evaluation Notice- is the Contracting Officers written notification to the Offeror for purposes of clarifications, communications, or discussions.

Finding - A “finding” is a “term of art” used in the Acquisition Source Selection Interactive Support Tool (ASSIST). A finding is the identification and documentation by the USG evaluation team of a specific individual aspect (positive or negative) of a proposal. It is accomplished by assessing the aspect (positive or negative) of a proposal against the USG’s requirements using the evaluation criteria as the measuring tools.

The ASSIST provides capability for eleven different types of findings which are defined below.

Minor or Clerical Error - A minor non-price/price factor informality or irregularity that is merely a matter of form and not of substance or a clerical error apparent on its face in the proposal.

Past Performance Relevancy Concern - An aspect of the proposal that raises a question about the relevancy of the Offeror’s past performance information.

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 sub-factor may involve risk of disruption of schedule, degradation of performance, the need for increased USG oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

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

Significant Weakness – A flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Strength- is 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 USG during contract performance.

Terms, Conditions, Concerns - An issue related to any of the solicitation provisions.

Uncertainty - Any aspect of a non- 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).

Weakness - means a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.