Attachment_0003_-_Section_M_-_Basis_for_Award.pdf

BASIS FOR AWARD Solicitation W52P1J-17-R-0111, Attachment 0003 ‘Section M

– Basis for Award in the ‘List of Attachments’ Section of the Solicitation and referred to as ‘Section M’ throughout this document

M.1. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD: The USG will make an award using a best value tradeoff source selection process as described herein. The Government will compare the Offeror’s proposal to Attachment 0002, ‘Section L – Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors’ (referred to as ‘Section L’ throughout this document) in order to perform a compliance review. The USG may not evaluate any Offeror’s proposal determined non-compliant per the terms noted in Section L and the USG will not further consider the Offeror’s proposal for award. Prior to the evaluation of the factors listed below, the Government will evaluate the acceptability of the Offeror's Facility Clearance and Validation of compliance with ANSI/ASIS PSC.1-2012. Once determinations are made regarding the acceptability of the Offerors' Facility Clearances and compliance with ANSI/ASIS PSC.1-2012, the following evaluation factors will be used to determine award: Technical (inclusive of four sub-factors: Program Management, Personnel Management, Training Management, and Logistics Management), Past Performance, and Price. The Technical factor is significantly more important than Past Performance. Past Performance is more important than the Price factor. All non-price factors when combined are significantly more important than the Price factor. ACC-RI will make an award to the responsible contractor(s) whose offer conforms to the solicitation and is determined to provide the best value to the Government considering price and non-price factors. This may result in an award to other than the lowest priced or highest technically rated Offeror.

M.2. NUMBER OF CONTRACT AWARDS. ACC-RI intends to award up to five FFP IDIQ contracts. The USG reserves the right to reject any or all proposals and make no award if such action is in the best interest of the USG.

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 as set forth in Section L.

M.4. PROOF OF FACILITIES CLEARANCE, VALIDATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH

ANSI/ASIS PSC.1-2012, AND SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENTS.

M.4.1. Facilities Clearance. The PCO will verify that the Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) code(s) for the Offeror and the teammates/subcontractors/managing partner, provided in Volume I, Proof of Facilities Clearance and Validation of compliance with ANSI/ASIS PSC.1-2012, possess a Secret Facility Clearance via the Defense Security Service (DSS) Industrial Security Facilities Database (ISFD) by the RFP closing date. If the CAGE code for the Offeror, managing partner, teammate or subcontractor provided does not possess a Secret Facility Clearance, the USG will find the Offeror unacceptable. The USG will not further evaluate unacceptable proposals and the USG will not consider the Offeror’s proposal for award.

M.4.2. Validation of compliance with ANSI/ASIS PSC.1-2012. The PCO will verify that the Offeror has provided evidence of compliance with ANSI/ASIS PSC.

1-2012 or ISO 18788-2015 IAW Section L.4.2. Failure to submit validation of compliance will deem the Offeror unacceptable. The USG will not further evaluate unacceptable proposals and the USG will not consider the Offeror’s proposal for award.

The Offerors will be rated IAW the following definitions for Sections M.4.1. and M.4.2.:

Acceptable: Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

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

M.4.3. The USG will review the Offerors proposal and amendments for accurate completion and applicable signatures.

M.4.4. The USG will not evaluate the Executive Summary of the Offeror’s proposal. Rather, the USG will review the Offeror’s Executive Summary to assist evaluators in familiarizing themselves with the approach each Offeror will use to meet the requirements of the Performance Work Statement (PWS)

M.5. EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUB-FACTORS. For those Offerors with an Acceptable Facilities Clearance and Acceptable compliance with ANSI/ASIS PSC.1- 2012, the USG will evaluate the following factors and sub-factors:

Factor 1 – Technical Sub-factor 1 – Program Management Sub-factor 2 – Personnel Management Sub-factor 3 – Training Management Sub-factor 4 – Logistics Management Factor 2 – Past Performance Factor 3 – Price

M.6. RELATIVE IMPORTANCE. For the Offerors with an Acceptable Facilities Clearance and Acceptable compliance with ANSI/ASIS PSC.1-2012, the USG assigns the following order of importance to the evaluation factors:

M.6.1. The three evaluation factors will be rated as follows: Technical (inclusive of four sub-factors: Program Management, Personnel Management, Training Management, and Logistics Management) is the most important factor.

Technical is significantly more important than Past Performance. Past Performance is more important than Price. All non-price factors combined are significantly more important than Price. As the two non-price factors become more equal among proposals, the evaluated price becomes more important. The USG will rate the sub-factors under the Technical Factor equal. The USG will assign a Technical Factor rating as a combination of the sub-factors’ individual ratings. In order for the USG to consider an Offeror’s proposal for award, the Offeror’s proposal receive a final rating of at least acceptable in all non-price factors/sub-factors. A final rating of marginal or unacceptable in any single factor/sub-factor will render the proposal unacceptable and ineligible for award.

M.7. Evaluation Approach. All proposals shall be subject to evaluation by a team of USG personnel in strict adherence to the evaluation criteria delineated within the solicitation. The USG will evaluate each Offeror against the solicitation criteria in strict accordance with proposal content. The USG will not assume that performance will include areas not specified in the Offeror’s proposal. All proposals shall be subject to evaluation by the Source Selection Team (SST). The SST shall not consider or use as a basis for evaluation any assumptions, preconceived ideas, and personal knowledge or opinions not supported by material provided within the Offeror’s proposal (e.g., past customers and previous contracting officials). The overarching evaluation approach for all factors and sub-factors is as follows:

1. Adequacy of Response: The proposal will be evaluated to determine the Offeror’s methods and approach have adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirements specified in the RFP.

2. Feasibility of Approach: The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the proposed approach is workable and the end result is achievable. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which successful performance is contingent upon 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.8. EVALUATION RATINGS. The USG will evaluate Technical Factor and sub-factors using the following adjectival scale:

Combined Technical/Risk Ratings Adjectival Rating Description

Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

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.

Acceptable

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

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.

M.8.1. The USG will assess Strengths, Weaknesses, and Deficiencies as follows:

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

Strength 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 Government during contract performance.

Weakness A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

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

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

M.9. FACTOR 1 - TECHNICAL. The Technical Factor has four sub-factors:

M.9.1. Sub-factor 1 – Program Management. The USG will conduct its evaluation to determine if the Offeror’s proposal demonstrates a clear understanding of and thorough approach for establishing the processes, procedures, capabilities and experience required to ensure successful execution of the requirements. The Offeror’s proposal included discussion of all the following aspects of managing the SSS program:

M.9.1.1. OCONUS AOR Experience. The USG will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal to determine the degree that it clearly demonstrates a level of experience working security contracts in the CENTCOM AOR or similar austere contingency environments to successfully execute the OCONUS requirements. The USG will conduct its analysis by evaluating the information submitted by the Offeror in response to L.5.1.1.

M.9.1.2. ANSI/ASIS Compliance Plan. The USG will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal to determine the degree that it provides a comprehensive and thorough compliance plan that includes a schedule of surveillance audits to assure continued compliance and a process of continual improvement. The USG will conducts its analysis by evaluating the information submitted by the Offeror in response to L.5.1.2.

M.9.1.3. Transition of Operations (Phase In and Phase Out). The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal to determine the degree that it provides a comprehensive and thorough approach for transitioning in and out of the operations with the experience and skills necessary to ensure professional execution with minimal disruption of services. The Government will evaluate the proposal to determine that it identified risks and provided mitigation methods and procedures. The USG will conducts its analysis by evaluating the information submitted by the Offeror in response to L.5.1.3. and its subparagraphs.

M.9.2. Sub-factor 2 – Personnel Management. The USG will conduct its evaluation to determine if the Offeror’s proposal demonstrates a clear understanding of and a thorough approach for establishing processes, procedures, capabilities and experience required to manage all the different staffing levels. The Contractor demonstrates effective management skill to advance personnel through all levels of required proficiency IAW the Performance Work Statement (PWS) as requested in the following:

M.9.2.1. Recruitment Plan. The USG will evaluate the Offeror’s recruitment plan to determine the degree to which it details the recruiting and hiring of personnel with the various skills required IAW the PWS and addresses both U.S. Citizens, Third Country National (TCN), Other Country Nationals (OCN), and Host Country personnel resources. More specifically, the USG will evaluate the recruitment plan to determine the degree to which it details how the plan recruits specified personnel with the background, qualifications, experience, and capability. The USG will evaluate the plan to ensure that it addresses the numerous Host Country Labor Laws to include Sponsorship and Visa processing and other international requirements associated with staffing this mission. The USG will prefer recruitment plans that draw exclusively from Montreux Document participating countries. The USG will conduct its analysis by evaluating the information submitted by the Offeror in response to L.5.2.1.

M.9.2.2. Retention Plan. The USG will evaluate the Offeror’s retention plan to determine the degree to which it clearly addresses plans to retain personnel with skill sets in high demand. The USG will evaluate the plan to determine the degree to which it provides tool and mechanisms to motivate good performance and demonstrates the ability to fill vacancies for an OCONUS contingency environment and manage attrition. The USG will conduct its analysis by evaluating the information submitted by the Offeror in response to L.5.2.2.

M.9.2.3. Organizational Structure, Contract Program Management, and Key Personnel. The USG will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal to determine the degree to which it discusses both CONUS and OCONUS corporate roles to ensure successful contract execution at multiple locations throughout the AOR IAW the PWS. The USG will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal to determine the degree to which it outlines the role of the Contract Program Management personnel detailing integration with the USG. The USG will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal to determine the degree to which it provides an effective and efficient CONUS structure with the financial capability, integrated corporate communication, coordination lines of authority, and the approach to interfacing with the USG program administration and oversight to support the OCONUS Contract Program Management key personnel responsible for ultimate contract execution, including the authority, experience, and capability.

The USG will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal to determine the degree to which it details its plan to incorporate sexual harassment and assault reporting and prevention in its corporate culture and at the program execution levels. The USG will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal to determine the degree to which it details oversight of all tiers of the training and performance tracking directly related to the mission and includes sample training and staffing plans and key position resumes. The USG will conducts its analysis by evaluating the information submitted by the Offeror in response to L.5.2.3.

M.9.2.4. Combating Trafficking in Persons (CTIP) Compliance Plan. The USG will evaluated the Offeror’s detailed CTIP Compliance Plan to determine whether the Offeror has completely satisfied the requirements set forth in L.5.2.4. The USG will evaluate the adequacy and feasibility of the Plan to successfully mitigate non-compliant Trafficking in Persons (TIP) issues and/or violations. The USG will evaluates the Plan to determine the sufficiency of the described approach to ethically source, vet, and recruit Host Country Nationals (HCNs) and/or Third Country Nationals (TCNs) and prevent abuse/exploitation by the contract employee’s supervisors. The USG will conduct its analysis by evaluating the information submitted by the Offeror in response to L.5.2.4. and its subparagraphs.

M.9.2.4.1. The USG shall verify that the Offeror has included a CTIP policy statement that reflects full understanding and compliance of FAR 52.222-50. The USG will conduct its analysis by evaluating the information submitted by the Offeror in response to L.5.2.4.1.

M.9.2.4.2. The USG shall evaluate the adequacy of the Offeror’s risk analysis and the extent to which controls will mitigate CTIP violations during recruitment and active employment. The USG will conduct its analysis by evaluating the information submitted by the Offeror in response to L.5.2.4.2.

M.9.2.4.3. The USG shall evaluate the Offeror’s ethics, compliance, and training program to ensure it effectively demonstrates the importance of employee safety, the employee’s legal rights, and the suitability of actions taken against an employee, supervisor, or subcontractor for violations. The USG will conducts its analysis by evaluating the information submitted by the Offeror in response to L.5.2.4.3.

M.9.2.4.4. The USG shall evaluate the Offeror’s reporting and investigative processes to determine the extent to which the Offeror can establish and complete these processes successfully. The USG will conducts its analysis by evaluating the information submitted by the Offeror in response to L.5.2.4.4.

M.9.2.4.5. The USG shall verify that the Offeror has provided an affirmative statement that reflects full understanding and compliance with host nation and country of origin recruitment and labor laws and its acknowledgement to only permit the use of recruitment companies with TIP-trained employees that prohibit the charging of recruitment fees to the employee. The USG shall verify that the Offeror has provided a list of countries from which it will source workers and copies of recruitment licenses which demonstrate requisite legal status to do overseas recruitment from the country of origin. The USG shall evaluate the Offeror’s processes to recruit and establish wages to determine the extent in which the Offeror has demonstrated the understanding of the legal processes and knowledge required to recruit and deploy workers as to affirm safe recruitment practices. The Offeror’s methods for auditing and enforcement of the recruitment and wage plan will be evaluated as to determine the capability of its procedures used to ensure its required CTIP Compliance Plan standards are met. The USG will conduct its analysis by evaluating the information submitted by the Offeror in response to L.5.2.4.5. and its subparagraphs.

M.9.2.4.6. The USG will evaluate the adequacy of the Offeror’s procedures to prevent employees, supervisors, or subcontractors from engaging in TIP. The USG will evaluate the sufficiency of the Offeror’s process to resolve TIP issues or violations, if they occur.

The USG will evaluate the Offeror’s controls to determine the extent to which they will successfully monitor, detect, and guard against potential coercion. The USG will evaluated the Offeror’s identified methods used to audit controls to determine the capability of its procedures used to ensure its required CTIP Compliance Plan standards are met. The USG will conduct its analysis by evaluating the information submitted by the Offeror in response to L.5.2.4.7.

M.9.3. Sub-factor 3 – Training Management. The USG will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal to determine the degree to which it clearly demonstrates a Training Plan that addresses the requirements in L.5.3 and its subparagraphs.

The USG will evaluate the plan to determine the degree to which it identifies learning goals and associated objectives, a systematic training approach including both learning and application methods with milestones and oversight of individual assessments and overall program assessments as instructed.

The USG will evaluate Training plans to ensure that all required elements of training are identified, with training sites, instructors and instructor qualifications, resources and other training aids, and frequency of instruction. The USG will evaluate the individual lesson plan for an accurate description of task, conditions of training and evaluation, standards of performance, and record keeping. The USG will evaluate where outsourced training is identified, as well as methods of certifying instructor qualifications.

M.9.4. Sub-factor 4 - Logistics. The USG will evaluate the logistics management plan to ensure that it addresses all required elements of L.5.4 and its subparagraphs. The USG will review Risk Management Matrix for supply chain management to evaluate whether the Offeror has identified and treated potential risks that could delay implementation of the contract or disrupt services of any task order underway.

M.10. FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE. The USG will evaluate the Offeror’s record of past and current performance to ascertain the probability of successfully performing the required efforts of the solicitation and corresponding attachments.

M.10.1. The USG will focus its inquiries on the Offeror's (and major subcontractor's/Joint Venture members'/new entities with parent companies) record of performance as it relates to all solicitation requirements, including price, schedule, performance and management of subcontractors. The USG defines Major subcontractors as members of an Offeror's overall team when the members are expected to perform ten percent or more of the proposed effort and do not include labor brokers. A significant achievement, problem, or lack of relevant data in any element of the work can become an important consideration in the evaluation process. Therefore, Offerors are reminded to include the most recent and relevant efforts in its proposal. Absent any recent and relevant past performance history or when the performance record is so sparse that the USG cannot assign a meaningful confidence assessment rating, the USG will assign the Offeror a neutral confidence rating and the USG will not evaluate the Offeror’s proposal either favorably or unfavorably on past performance. The USG may use data provided by the Offeror in its proposal and data obtained from any other sources, including but not limited to, data in USG files or data obtained through interviews with personnel familiar with the contractor and its current and past performance under Federal, State or Local USG or commercial contracts for same or similar services. The USG may consider the source and context of information it evaluates as well as general trends in performance and corrective actions. The USG is not obligated to interview all points of contact identified by Offerors. It is the responsibility of the Offeror to provide complete past performance information and thorough explanations as required by Section L.

The USG reserves the right to consider any significant past performance after the solicitation closing date and prior to award.

M.10.2. In evaluating the past performance factor the USG shall consider each Offeror's demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract requirements. There are three steps to the past performance evaluation: determining the extent of recency/relevancy of past performance information, assessing quality of past performance of individual efforts, and assigning a rating to the past performance factor.

M.10.2.1. RECENT contracts are defined as follows (not a separate rating):

- Prime contracts, task orders, delivery orders, or first-tier subcontracts awarded or commenced within three years prior to the closing date of this RFP; or

- Were awarded or commenced prior to three years, but a contract period of performance (i.e., providing services pursuant to the contractor’s performance work statement) remained on-going as of the date of this solicitation.

M.10.2.2 RELEVANCY is not separately rated. When determining relevancy, the USG will review the following for similarity with SSS: type of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontracting/teaming. The following definitions will be used to determine relevancy of past performance information.

Past Performance Relevancy Definitions

Rating Description Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same, similar, or 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.

M.10.2.3. QUALITY ASSESSMENT. The USG will evaluate the quality of the Offeror’s past performance on those recent efforts that were determined relevant by determining how well the contractor performed on the contracts. Documented results from the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) and other sources for the support and basis for this assessment.

M.10.2.4. PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT: The USG will select the most appropriate rating from the chart below. The USG will consider the assessed relevancy/recency and quality of past performance to determine a single performance confidence rating for past performance.

Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Definition Substantial Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has a high expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

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.

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

The USG will conduct its analysis by evaluating the information submitted by the Offeror in response to L.6, its respective sections, or other sources as discussed in Section M.10.1.

M.11. FACTOR 3 – PRICE.

M.11.1. For CLINs X001 through X007, the SSS Price Matrix will multiply the Government provided quantities and number of days by the per person rates the Offeror proposed for each clearance level to arrive at the Extended Price for the corresponding clearance (i.e. Extended Price-Secret Clearance). The USG will sum the Extended Prices for No Clearance, Secret Clearance, and Top Secret Clearance to arrive at the sub-CLIN Total. The USG will sum sub-CLIN Totals to arrive at the CLIN Total.

For CLINs X008 through X010, the USG will calculate the CLIN Total by multiplying the Government provided quantity and number of days by the Offeror’s proposed daily rate.

For CLIN X011 and CLIN X012 the SSS Price Matrix will multiply the Government provided quantities by the per person rate proposed by the Offeror to arrive at the sub-CLIN Total. The USG will sum the sub-CLIN Totals to arrive at the CLIN Total.

The SSS Price Matrix will sum the CLIN Totals to arrive at the Total Evaluated Price for each of the Ordering Period tabs.

M.11.2. The Summary tab of the SSS Price Matrix contains formulas that will automatically populate the Total Price for the five Ordering Periods. In addition, the Summary tab will also calculate the 6-month extension amount by multiplying the proposed Ordering Period Five total by 50%. The SSS Price Matrix will sum the five Ordering Periods and the six month extension to arrive at the Total Evaluated Price.

M.11.3. The USG will evaluate the Total Evaluated Price, but will not assign a rating.

M.11.4. The Total Evaluated Price will be evaluated utilizing the proposal analysis techniques IAW FAR 15.404-1.