DRAFT_WSTARS-_SECTION_M.pdf

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104

SECTION M: EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

This is a best value source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), Army Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFARS).

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, price and other factors considered. In determining the best overall response, the combined non-price factors are more important than the price factor; however, price is a significant factor. The Government may select for award the offeror whose price is not necessarily the lowest, but whose technical proposal is more advantageous to the Government and warrants the additional cost.

M.2 EVALUATION FACTORS

The following evaluation factors will be utilized in the selection of the Best Value source:

FACTOR 1: Technical FACTOR 2: Management FACTOR 3: Past Performance FACTOR 4: Price

FACTOR 5: Small Business Participation

M.3 RELATIVE ORDER OF IMPORTANCE

Factor 1 (Technical) is significantly more important than Factor 3 (Past Performance), Factor 4 (Price), and Factor 5 (Small Business Participation).

Factor 1 (Technical) is more important than Factor 2 (Management).

Factor 2 (Management) is more important than Factor 3 (Past Performance), Factor 4 (Price), and Factor 5 (Small Business Participation).

Factor 1 (Technical) and Factor 2 (Management) collectively are significantly more important than Factor 4 (Price).

Factor 3 (Past Performance) is more important than Factor 4 (Price).

Factor 3 (Past Performance) and Factor 4 (Price) are each more important than Factor 5 (Small Business Participation).

Non-price factors, when combined, are significantly more important than Price. However, as non-Cost factors tend to equalize Price becomes more important.

http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm

If non-price factors are evaluated as comparatively equal between two or more Offerors; price may become a determinative factor.

M.4 NUMBER OF CONTRACT AWARDS

The Government intends to award a single award, five year, Indefinite Quantity Indefinite Delivery (IDIQ) contract. The Government reserves the right to award no contract at all, depending on the quality of the proposals, prices submitted and availability of funds.

M.5 PROPOSAL EVALUATION

All proposals shall be subject to evaluation by a team of Government personnel, with advisory Contractor support, in strict adherence to the evaluation criteria delineated within the solicitation.

The Government will evaluate each offeror against the solicitation criteria in strict accordance with proposal content. The Government will not assume that performance will include areas not specified in the offerors proposal. Evaluators shall not consider or use as a basis for evaluation any assumptions, preconceived ideas, or personal knowledge or opinions not supported by material provided in the proposal. However, the evaluation of Past Performance may use data other than that provided with the Offerors proposal (e.g., past customers and previous contracting officials).

(1) The evaluation team members will evaluate their assigned area of the Offeror's proposal and will only rely on the information provided in each Volume to perform an independent evaluation. Based on the adequacy of the response, the Technical, Management, and Small Business Participation factors will be rated on the following basis:

Color Rating

Adjectival 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 un-awardable.

(2) Past Performance will be evaluated using the following scale:

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 successfully perform the required effort.

M.6 EVALUATION FACTORS:

Mere statements of compliance or repetition of the requirements without a complete discussion and analysis is unsatisfactory.

FACTOR 1 – TECHNICAL

The Technical Factor will be evaluated for the Offerors understanding of the requirements, feasibility of its approach toward performance and meeting requirements, flexibility in adjusting to changes in technical requirements, completeness/adequacy of response, associated risk, and to the specific criteria as listed below:

(i) 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 solicitation, both innovatively and efficiently. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which each requirement has been addressed in the proposal in accordance with CRS. The proposal will be evaluated on the comprehensiveness of the Offeror’s technical approach of the base IDIQ and Task Order 0001. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s methodology to integrate hardware, software and network infrastructure configurations, application development, testing, system rollout and maintenance.

a) The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s hardware and software methodology in six specific areas:

- WMII Definition and Design

- Virtual Machine environment hosting and migration

- Database Consolidation and Schema Design

- Extract, Translate and Load

- Data Analytics for Trend Analysis and Automation

- Service Oriented Architecture

(ii) Feasibility of Approach. The technical approach will be evaluated for degree to which it demonstrates a sound and workable technical concept that is capable of meeting all of the requirements of the CRS. A strong proposal shall demonstrate a high degree of thoroughness, soundness, and comprehension of the requirements indicating a high likelihood of success.

(iii) Schedule: The Government will evaluate the Integrated Master Schedule

(IMS) based upon the Offeror’s ability to meet the requirements stated in the

CRS.

(iv) The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal for their level of understanding of SATCOM technologies and operations. The nature and scope of SATCOM knowledge will be assessed for relevancy to contractor’s ability to complete the requirements of the CRS.

(v) Task Order 0001. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed approach to Task Order 0001.

a) Technical Approach: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s complete technical approach utilized to provide turn-key solution to the Task Order against the requirements stated in the CRS.

b) Basis of Estimate: The Government will evaluate the number of proposed full time equivalents (FTEs) for each CLIN in the proposed task order against the requirements stated in the Task Order CRS.

FACTOR 2: MANAGEMENT

(i) 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 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 management requirements within the required schedule.

(ii) Program Management Approach: The Government will evaluate the

Offeror’s concepts for managing activities, regular meetings, and stress dependencies and activities requiring coordination with other parties (e.g., Configuration Management, Capacity Planning, Testing, Training, Help Desk, etc.). The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s plan to communicate and coordinate services and how plan to control and/manage the work and performance among its resources (i.e., Contractor’s own personnel, Subcontractors, other stakeholders).

(iii) Quality Assurance Approach: The Government will evaluate the

Offeror’s approach to establishing and maintaining a Quality Assurance Program to ensure that all requirements of the contract are complied with fully met.

(iv) Configuration Management Approach: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s detailed methodology to identifying, implementing, managing, and maintaining Configuration Management processes for hardware equipment, software and services.

(v) Risk Management Approach. The Government will evaluate the

Offeror’s approach to Risk Management to include the detailed methodology for identifying, implementing, managing, and maintaining Risk Management processes to include technology insertion processes to reduce the risk of obsolesce of equipment, software and services.

(vi) Agile Process Approach. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s methodology, structure and policies for all systems engineering, system software updates for security, RMF requirements and IAVAs, supportability analyses, document production, training, installation, and logistics support, to support the Government’s requirements objectives via an agile approach.

(vii) Management of Subcontractors: The Government will evaluate the

Offeror’s proposal for clarity and specificity in the delineation of organizational roles and responsibilities.

a. The proposed approach fully manages subcontracts on a global, regional, and local basis assuring subcontractors are capable of providing the required logistical and technical support needed at all times, tracks the cost, quality, and performance of multiple subcontractors and vendors at all times; provides the support required in a dynamic environment; and includes cost control/cost reduction measures and incentives for superior subcontractor performance.

b. Small Business Joint Venture Offerors will be evaluated to determine if ostensible subcontracting exists between it and its large business major subcontractors.

(viii) Security Requirements: The Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated on whether it satisfies the security requirements of the CRS and DD Form

254. If an Offeror does not currently meet all of the security requirements of the CRS and DD Form 254, the Offeror’s plan will be evaluated on how well it demonstrates a reasonable and thorough approach to ensure they can meet these requirements.

FACTOR 3: PAST PERFORMANCE

a. Past performance information is evaluated as a predictor of future contract performance. The Government will assess the degree of confidence it has in the expectation that the Offeror will successfully complete the requirements in accordance with the contract terms based on the Offerors demonstrated record of recent and relevant performance.

b. Recent Contracts are prime contracts, task orders, delivery orders, or subcontracts where deliverables or services were performed, or still being performed, anytime within three (3) years of issuance of the WSTARS/WMII solicitation. The Government reserves the right to consider any significant past performance after the solicitation closing date and prior to award.

c. Relevant performance are contract references or task orders that demonstrate the Offeror has successfully performed on recent contracts that have an annual average dollar value of more than $100,000 that encompasses the same or similar scope of effort as the WSTARS/WMII solicitation to include work related, but not limited to, the following in hierarchical order of importance of

WSTARS/WMII:

- In evaluating performance history, the Government will review the Offerors current and prior performance record of complying with all aspects of its contractual agreement.

- In conducting the past performance evaluation, the Government 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 Government by the Offeror.

d. The Government may consider the currency, relevancy, source and context of the past performance information it evaluates as well as general trends in performance, and demonstrated corrective actions. A significant achievement, problem/problem resolution or lack of relevant data in any element of the work can become an important consideration in the evaluation process. A negative finding in any element may result in an overall lower confidence assessment rating.

e. The relevancy of the past performance information will be determined:

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.

f. Absent any recent and/or relevant past performance history, the offeror will be assigned Unknown Confidence (Neutral) and the Offeror’s proposal for the Past Performance Factor will not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably.

g. Offerors past performance will be rated as follows:

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 successfully perform the required effort.

h. The Government 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 Government is not obligated to make another request for the required information.

FACTOR 4: PRICE.

Proposal Analysis shall be performed in accordance with FAR Part 15.404. Analysis techniques shall be used to determine (A) price reasonableness, (B) cost realism and (C) whether the proposal reflects an understanding of the effort required. Additional analysis techniques may be used as determined necessary by the Contracting Officer or their designated representative.

These methods of evaluation may include the use of information/input from sources such as (but not limited to) other Government agencies and personnel.

Price proposals will not be assigned an adjectival rating.

Price Analysis: Price analysis is the process of examining and evaluating a proposed price without evaluating its separate cost elements and proposed profit. Price analysis may include evaluating data other than certified cost or pricing data obtained from the offeror when there is no other means for determining a fair and reasonable price.

Cost Realism Analysis: Cost Realism is the process of independently reviewing and evaluating specific elements of the offeror's proposed cost elements to determine whether the estimated proposed cost elements are realistic for the work to be performed; reflect a clear understanding of the requirements; and are consistent with the unique methods of performance described in the Technical Proposal. Cost realism analysis will be performed to determine the probable cost of performance for each Offeror. The probable cost may differ from the proposed cost and will reflect the Government's best estimate of the cost of any contract that is likely to result from the Offeror's proposal. In order to perform Cost Realism Analysis, the Government requires that Offerors submit sufficient supporting detail relative to labor, direct and indirect rates, subcontracts, material and equipment if applicable, and Other Direct Costs.

Unbalanced Pricing: As part of the evaluation, proposals will be reviewed to identify any significant unbalanced pricing found between ordering periods, quantity ranges, contract line items or sub-line items as applicable. In accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g), i.e., Unbalanced Pricing, a proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

The Total Evaluated price will be observed on the WSTARS WMII Price Matrix spreadsheet but complete reliance will be placed upon the offeror’s submitted Price proposal spreadsheet in their native format to support those summary amounts. Therefore, it is the offeror’s responsibility to fully define their proposed cost and pricing data.

If an offeror fails to submit a fully adequate Price proposal, the Government may reject that proposal as non-responsive.

FACTOR 5: SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION.

(i) 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

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

• Small Business (SB) – 23.00%

• Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) – 5.00%

• Woman Owned Small Business (WOSB) – 5.00%

• HUBZone-Certified Small Business (HUBZone) – 3.00%

• Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB) – 5.00%

• Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) – 3.00%

(iii) The Offeror’s proposed percentage of participation (goals) identified in the Small Business

Participation Plan Attachment (Section J, Attachment 0006) 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 be 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.

(iv) 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.

(a) 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.

M.3.3 Small Business Participation Rating

(v) 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.

(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.