Attachment_0007_-_SECTION_M.pdf

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1 BASIS OF AWARD

M.1.1 OVERVIEW

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-cost/price factors are more important than the cost/price factor; however, cost/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.1.2 EVALUATION FACTORS

In order to move to Phase II of the evaluation, the Government must determine the Offeror to be acceptable in Phase I:

Proof of Facility Clearance: In order for the Government to determine an Offeror Acceptable, the Offeror and applicable Subcontractor(s) must possess a SECRET Facility Clearance, IAW DODD 5220.22, National Industrial Security Program Operation Manual, by the RFP closing date.

Accounting System Documentation: In order for the Government to determine an Offeror Acceptable, the Offeror must have an acceptable accounting system as demonstrated by a successful DCAA audit or a letter from DCMA documenting its approval / adequacy.

The Government will use the following evaluation factors in phase II in the trade-off Best Value source selection:

Factor 1: Program Management Factor 2: Past Performance;

Factor 3: Cost/Price

M.1.3 RELATIVE ORDER OF IMPORTANCE.

For the Offerors with an Acceptable Facility Clearance and Accounting System Documentation, the U.S. Government assigns the following order of importance:

Factor 1: Program Management is significantly more important than either Factor 2:

Past Performance or Factor 3 Cost/Price.

Factor 2: Past Performance is more important than Factor 3: Cost/Price.

Non-cost/price factors, Program Management/Past Performance, when combined, are significantly more important than Cost/Price. Although Cost/Price is not the most important factor, it could become a controlling factor if offers under the non-price factors tend to equalize. The closer the ratings in the non-Cost/Price factors, the more significant Cost/Price becomes.

The evaluation of proposals submitted in response to this solicitation, and source selection, shall be conducted using a tradeoff process to obtain the best value to the Government. Proposals which are eligible for award will be subject to the Source Selection Tradeoff process, considering both the evaluation Factors and their relative order of importance to identify the proposal which represents the best value to the Government. As part of the best value determination, the relative strengths, weaknesses, and risks of each offerors proposal will be considered, as specified below, in addition to the other evaluation methods described below, in selecting the offer that is most advantageous and represents the best value to the Government.

The Source Selection Authority’s (SSA)’s award decision will be based on the SSA’s independent judgement of which proposal is most advantageous to the Government.

The award decision will be based on a comparative assessment of proposals against the source selection criteria (Sections L & M) of the solicitation. Offerors are cautioned that award may be made to other than the highest rated offeror or other than lowest-priced offeror.

M.2 NUMBER OF CONTRACT AWARDS

The Government intends to award one contract as a result of this solicitation. The Government may choose not to award a contract where it concludes that no proposal exists with a reasonable probability of complying with contract terms and conditions.

The Government will select for award the proposal which represents the best value to the Government.

M.3 KEY EVALUATION DEFINITIONS

These key evaluation definitions apply for the evaluation of Factors.

Key Evaluation Definitions

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.4 REJECTION OF OFFERS

Offerors shall carefully read, understand, and provide all the information requested in the Proposal Preparation Instructions and Content contained in Section L. In accordance with clause FAR 52.215-1 contained in this solicitation, the Government may reject any or all proposals if such action is in the Government’s interests. The circumstances which may lead to the rejection of a proposal include, but are not limited to, the following:

(a) The proposal fails to meaningfully respond to the Proposal Preparation Instructions specified in Section L of this solicitation. Examples of failure to meaningfully respond include:

(1) When a proposal merely offers to perform work according to the RFP terms or fails to present more than a statement indicating its capability to comply with the RFP terms and does not provide support and elaboration as specified in Section L of this solicitation.

(2) A proposal fails to provide any of the data and information required in Section L.

(3) A proposal provides some data but omits significant material data and information required by Section L.

(4) A proposal merely repeats the contract performance work statement without elaboration.

(b) The proposal contains unbalanced pricing as defined in Clause 52.215-1

(c) The Offeror proposes exceptions to the attachments, exhibits, enclosures, or other RFP terms and conditions.

(d) The Offeror's proposal contains any inconsistencies between proposal volumes.

M.5 SOURCE SELECTION TEAM

M.5.1 SOURCE SELECTION AUTHORITY (SSA) The SSA is the official designated to direct the source selection process and select the Offeror for contract award.

M.6 PROPOSAL VOLUMES

M.6.1 VOLUME I: GENERAL

Per FAR 9.103, a contract will be placed only with an Offeror that the Contracting Officer determines to be responsible. A prospective Offeror, in order to be eligible for award for this acquisition, must be able to demonstrate it meets the standards of responsibility set forth in FAR 9.104. As a part of this determination, the Contracting Officer may utilize the Offeror's proposed prices, as well as other information, to determine if the prospective contractor has adequate financial resources to perform the contract. No award can be made to an Offeror who has been determined to be not responsible by the Contracting Officer. To verify an Offeror meets the responsibility criteria at FAR 9.104, the following will also be considered:

Business Systems Information

Financial Capability

Property Management Plan

Offeror provided information relating to solicitation Section I, Contract Clauses, and Section K, Representations, Certifications, and other Statements of Offerors.

PHASE I EVALUATION

M.6.2 VOLUME II: GO/NO GO Criteria

In order to move to Phase II of the evaluation, the Government must determine the Offeror to be acceptable in Phase I (M.6.2.1 through M.6.2.2). The Offeror will be rated in accordance with the following definitions:

Acceptable: Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

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

M.6.2.1 PROOF OF FACILITY CLEARANCE

In order for the Government to determine an Offeror Acceptable, the Offeror and applicable Subcontractor(s) must possess a SECRET Facility Clearance, IAW DODD 5220.22, National Industrial Security Program Operation Manual, by the RFP closing date. The Contracting Officer will verify that the CAGE code(s) for the Offeror and identified Subcontractors possess a SECRET or INTERIM SECRET Facility Clearance via the Defense Security Services (DSS) Industrial Security Facilities Database (ISFD) by the RFP closing date.

M.6.2.2 ACCOUNTING SYSTEM DOCUMENTATION

In order for the Government to determine an Offeror Acceptable, the Offeror must have an acceptable accounting system as demonstrated by a successful DCAA audit or a letter from DCMA documenting its approval / adequacy.

PHASE II EVALUATION

The following combined adjectival ratings will be used in the evaluation of Factor 1:

Program Management

Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

Adjectival Rating Definition

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.

As part of the combined technical/risk assessment (using the adjectival rating described above), assessment of technical risk, which is manifested by the identification of weakness(es), considers potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and/or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. The following descriptions of risk will be used during the combined technical/risk assessment:

Technical Risk Descriptions Description

Low

Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

M.6.3 VOLUME III: FACTOR I PROGRAM MANAGEMENT.

M.6.3.1 The Government will evaluate the Management and Staffing Plan (MSP) and associated Outcome Measurement Summary (OMS) and Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP).

M.6.3.2 The Government will evaluate the Management and Staffing Plan (MSP) for the following:

1. The MSP clearly and specifically conveys the Offeror’s capability to provide personnel, and associated administrative support, to meet the specified statement of objectives identified in Section L.6.3.2 through the entire period of performance and for the transition from the incumbent contractor throughout Afghanistan.

2. The MSP explains how the Offeror minimizes risk and increases cost/schedule/performance effectiveness.

3. The MSP is feasible and the Offeror’s methods and approach provide the Government with a high level of confidence of successful completion.

M.6.3.3 The Government will evaluate the Outcome Measurement Summary (OMS) to determine if the identified performance objectives cover all salient elements of the requirement identified in the MSP. The Government will evaluate that the performance objectives identified in the OMS correspond to the MSP. The Government will also evaluate the performance standards, acceptable quality levels, and methods of surveillance to determine whether or not they are reasonable and feasible.

M.6.3.4 The Government will evaluate the Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) to see if it crosswalks to OMS. The Government will also determine whether the QASP explains the following:

1. What will be monitored;

2. How monitoring will take place;

3. Who will conduct the monitoring; and

4. How monitoring efforts and results will be documented.

M.6.4 VOLUME IV: FACTOR 2 PAST PERFORMANCE

M.6.4.1 The Government evaluates past performance information 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 solicitation requirements based on the Offeror's demonstrated record of recent and relevant performance. If an Offeror is a Joint Venture, the Government will assess the Offeror’s and Joint Venture’s past performance record in totality to determine the Offeror's performance confidence assessment rating.

M.6.4.2 It is the responsibility of the Offeror to provide complete past performance information and thorough explanations as required by Section L.6.4. The Government may use any of the following information as it evaluates an Offeror’s past performance:

a) Past performance information provided by the Offeror in its proposal;

b) Past performance information obtained from Performance Assessment

Questionnaires; and

c) Past performance information obtained from any other sources available to the

Government, to include, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information

Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity

Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; the Defense Contract Management Agency; and interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Fee Determining Officials.

M.6.4.3 The Government is not obligated to interview all points of contact identified by

Offerors nor is the Government limited to the points of contact provided.

M.6.4.4 The Government will evaluate each reference to determine whether or not it is recent. Recency is defined at L.6.4.4.

M.6.4.5 The Government will evaluate each recent reference to determine whether or not it is relevant. Relevancy is defined at L.6.4.5.

M.6.4.6 The Government will review past performance information collected on all recent and relevant contracts to determine the quality of the Offeror’s performance. The

Government will focus its review to the areas of Technical (Quality of Service), Cost

Control, Schedule/Timeliness, Management or Business Relations, and Regulatory

Compliance. The Government may consider the recency, relevancy, source, context of the past performance information it evaluates, general trends in performance, and demonstrated corrective actions. An adverse finding in any element, a lack of relevant data in regards to a performance issue and its resolution, or a significant achievement can become an important consideration in the evaluation process.

In the case of Offerors for which there is no information on past contract performance or where past contract performance information is not available, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past contract performance. In this case, the Offeror’s past performance is unknown and assigned a performance confidence rating of “neutral.”

The Government will select the most appropriate performance confidence assessment from the chart below.

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.

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.

M.6.5 VOLUME V: FACTOR 3 COST/PRICE

M.6.5.1. Price proposals will not be assigned an adjectival rating, but will be evaluated for reasonableness in accordance with FAR 15.404-1, Proposal Analysis Techniques. A cost analysis will not be conducted.

M.6.5.2. The Offeror’s (including any Subcontractors) price proposals will be evaluated as follows:

a. Price Analysis techniques will be used to determine price reasonableness.

b. The Government intends to evaluate price reasonableness in accordance with FAR Part 15.404-1(b), relying primarily upon competition. The Government expects adequate competition and a comparison will be made of total evaluated prices received in response to the solicitation. However, the Government reserves the right to require submission of certified cost or pricing data and/or data other than certified cost or pricing data from the Offeror adequate to determine the reasonableness of a proposal if competition was inadequate for that purpose.

M.6.5.3. The Total Evaluated Price for the Base and all Option years will be calculated by summing the Total Prices for each labor category proposed for all CLINs, plus the Not to Exceed (NTE) amounts for Travel and Other Direct Costs (ODCs). For the Option to Extend Services, the Total Evaluated Price will be one-half of the Offeror’s Total Evaluated Price for the final option year price (Option Year 4).

M.6.5.4. Therefore, the Offeror's total price for the purpose of evaluation will include the price of all CLINs for the base period and all four option years; that price will be calculated automatically on the Price Matrix – Attachment 0002, Summary tab.

Evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the options. The total evaluated price is inclusive of all Government-developed surrogates. Complete reliance will be placed on the offeror’s Price Matrix – Attachment 0002.

M.6.5.5. Evaluation of the Option to Extend Services. As part of the evaluation, the Government will evaluate the Option to Extend Services under FAR 52.217-8 by adding one-half of the Offeror’s final option year (Option Year 4) total evaluated price to the Offeror’s Total Evaluated Price. Therefore, the Offeror’s Total Evaluated Price on the Summary tab will include the prices for the Base Year, Option Years 1 through 4, plus one-half of the fourth option year total evaluated price (shown under “Option to Extend Services”).

M.6.5.6. Unbalanced Pricing. As part of the evaluation, proposals will be reviewed to identify any potential Unbalanced Pricing. In accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g), Unbalanced Pricing, a proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

M.6.5.7. If the offeror fails to submit prices for all CLINs in the Base Year and all Option Years, the proposal will be determined unacceptable, resulting in the offeror’s proposal being rejected.

M.6.5.8. The methods of evaluation noted above may include the use of information from sources such as, but not limited to, the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) and the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA).