Attachment 0003- Section M - Basis for Award 12112020.pdf

11 December 2020

BASIS FOR AWARD, Solicitation W52P1J-20-R-0093, 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 Lowest

Price Technically Acceptable approach IAW FAR 15.101-2 and as described herein.

The Government will compare the Offeror’s proposal to Attachment 0002, ‘Section L –

Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors’ 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 Offerors’ Facility Clearance and Validation of

Compliance with ANSI/ASIS PSC.1-2012 or ISO 18788. Once determinations are made regarding the acceptability of the Offerors’ Facility Clearance and compliance with

ANSI/ASIS PSC.1-2012, the following evaluation factors will be used to determine award: (1) Technical (inclusive of three sub-factors), (2) Past Performance, and (3)

Price. Award will be made to the Offeror who holds a Secret facility clearance, is in compliance with ANSI/ASIS PSC.1-2012 or ISO 18788, provides a technically acceptable proposal with the lowest evaluated price and acceptable past performance.

NUMBER OF CONTRACT AWARDS. The USG intends to award one contract with

Firm Fixed Price and Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee Contract Line Items. 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.

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.2 EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUB-FACTORS. Award will be made to the Offeror based on the instructions set forth in Section L, and the evaluation factors in accordance with Section M. For those Offerors with an acceptable Facilities Clearance and acceptable compliance with ANSI/ASIS PSC.1-2012 or ISO 18788, a technical evaluation will be performed to determine if an Offeror’s proposal is technically acceptable or technically unacceptable. Price will be evaluated solely on those proposals that are technically acceptable. The Offeror shall clearly address each element of its proposal. Any proposal failing to address all of the elements or contain unbalanced pricing may be considered indicative of the Offeror’s lack of understanding in response to the Government’s requirements and may be determined unacceptable.

The Technical factor will assess the Offeror's understanding of the requirement, soundness of approach, overall merit, and risks of the Offeror's technical proposal in meeting the total requirement as described in the Solicitation and its attachments.

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.

EVALUATION RATINGS: The USG will evaluate and assign a rating of Acceptable or Unacceptable for all non-cost factors. For Technical, evaluation will be conducted at the sub-factor level with an overall Technical factor rating assigned based on the individual sub-factor ratings and findings. A rating of Acceptable or Unacceptable will be assigned for all the sub-factors. An Unacceptable rating in any sub-factor will result in an overall rating of Unacceptable. The definition of each rating is below:

Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings

Acceptable: Proposal meets the requirements of the Solicitation.

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

M.3. Volume I- Proof of Facilities Clearance, Validation of Compliance with ANSI/ASIS PSC.1-2012 or the International Standard ISO 18788, Management System for Private Security Operations- Requirements with Guidance, Supplemental Documents, and Executive Summary:

M.3.1 Facilities Clearance: The PCO will verify that the Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) code(s) for the Offeror, provided in Volume I, Proof of Facilities Clearance, Validation of Compliance with ANSI/ASIS PSC.1-2012 or the International Standard ISO 18788, Management System for Private Security Operations- Requirements with Guidance, Supplemental Documents, and Executive Summary, possess a Secret Facility Clearance via the Defense Security System (DSS) Industrial Security Facilities Database (ISFD) by the Solicitation closing date. If the CAGE code for the Offeror 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.3.2 Validation of Compliance with ANSI/ASIS PSC.1-2012 or the International Standard ISO 18788, Management System for Private Security Operations- Requirements with Guidance: The PCO will verify that the Offeror provided evidence of compliance with ANSI/ASIS PSC.1-2012 or International Standard ISO 18788 IAW Section L.3.2 in the form of a certificate of compliance, certificate of registration, statement of certification certified by an impartial third party to ensure all requirements of either ANSI/ASIS PSC.1-2012 or ISO 18788 are met by the offeror, or a statement of self-certification to ensure all requirements of either ANSI/ASIS PSC.1-2012 or ISO 18788 are met by the offeror. If proposing as a teaming arrangement, the PCO will verify that the Prime vendor within the teaming arrangement provided evidence of compliance. Failure to submit evidence 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.

M.3.3 The USG will review the Offeror’s proposal and amendments for accurate completion and applicable signatures. The PCO will verify the Offeror submitted a completed Price Matrix with Volume IV which will serve as the Offeror’s completion of Section B.

M.3.4 The USG will review the DD254 for accurate completion.

M.3.5 The USG will not evaluate the Executive Summary of the Offeror’s proposal.

M.3.6 The USG will review the Offeror’s proposal for submission of their draft Contractor Work Breakdown Structure (CDRL A006) and draft Quality Control Plan (CDRL A008).

M.4. Volume II: TECHNICAL. The Technical factor is comprised of three sub-factors:

Sub-factor 1: Mobilization Plan Sub-factor 2: Staffing and Management Plan Sub-factor 3: Certification and Training Plan

M.4.1. Sub-factor 1 - Mobilization Plan: The Government will evaluate whether the Offeror’s Mobilization Plan adequately details how personnel will be medically screened, trained, armed, and equipped to perform services IAW the PWS and applicable laws on Kwajalein/Marshall Islands and outlying islands where performance will take place. The Government will also evaluate whether the Offeror’s Mobilization Plan provides realistic, compete and full description of tasks to be performed during the mobilization phase including a timeline that ensures the Offeror is ready to perform services after the 90 day phase-in. The Offeror’s Mobilization Plan must adequately address how the Offeror will ensure that 100% of the contractor personnel will be authorized to be armed at Kwajalein/Marshall islands 90 days after contract award, and detail the procedures and list of equipment (e.g. weapons, NTV’s PPE) required to be furnished and integrated IAW the PWS.

M.4.2. Sub-factor 2: Staffing and Management Plan: The Government will evaluate whether the Offeror’s Staffing and Management Plan adequately details the Offeror’s approach to recruit, hire, and retain a workforce of security personnel with the skill sets required in the PWS. The Government will evaluate whether the plan provided includes an organizational chart that fully and adequately addresses the organizational structure.

The Staffing and Management Plan must include all levels of authority to include subcontractors, and must lay out a chain of command to facilitate effective and timely decision-making. The Offeror’s proposal must demonstrate the ability to provide 100% coverage of all positions identified in the Position Table in the PWS. The Government will also evaluate whether the Staffing and Management Plan includes a sample manning report that adequately outlines the number of personnel required to perform the work and sustain operations without mission interruption due to personnel rotations, scheduling, attrition, and emergency leave based on mission requirements. The Government will evaluate the Staffing and Management Plan to ensure that if an Offeror is proposing staffing beyond 65 personnel that the Offeror detailed within its Staffing and Management plan how its proposed makeup of personnel (i.e. US Expat, Local National, Other Country National) is such that billeting limitations will not be exceeded.

The Government will evaluate the Staffing and Management Plan to determine whether it includes an adequately detailed approach to obtain and maintain individual arming authorizations at 100% and manage medical re-certifications so there is no lapse or degradation of mission requirements IAW the PWS. The Staffing and Management Plan must provide details of how the Offeror plans to mitigate high turnover of personnel and how the Offeror plans to integrate new/replacement personnel so there are no interruptions to mission requirements.

M.4.3. Sub-factor 3: Certification & Training Plan: The Government will evaluate whether the Offeror’s Certification and Training plan includes an adequately detailed schedule for conducting initial and annual training of security personnel to ensure they are fully qualified and certified to perform respective duties, to include initial entry training, weapons qualifications, and physical ability testing. The Certification and Training plan must include how the Offeror intends to satisfy all of the certification requirements listed within the PWS. The plan provided must describe how the training requirements are standardized and conducted with each employee. The plan provided must adequately detail the certifications for contractor working dogs and dog handlers to ensure these personnel are ready to mobilize at time of contract award and must describe how all personnel will remain properly trained and re-certified.

M.5. VOLUME III – PAST PERFORMANCE: 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 in accordance with the contract terms based on the Offeror’s demonstrated record of recent and relevant performance. The recency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in each offeror’s performance will be considered. Offerors are reminded to include the most recent and relevant efforts in their proposal. 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 required to interview all POCs identified by the Offeror. 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.

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

Prime contracts, task orders, delivery orders, or first-tier subcontracts where services were performed or are still being performed anytime within three years of issuance of this solicitation. Work performed on multiple orders under the same contract may be submitted as a single contract reference as long as all of the work supports the same program/solution. The U.S. Government reserves the right to consider any significant past performance after the solicitation closing date and prior to award.

M.5.2. RELEVANCY is not separately rated. When determining relevancy, the USG will review the following for similarity with the Kwajalein/Reagan Test Site Security and Access Control Service requirement: 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.

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.5.3. 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.5.4. PERFORMANCE RATING: The Offerors Past Performance will be rated as follows:

Acceptable: Based on the Offerors performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the Offerors performance record is unknown.

Unacceptable: Based on the Offerors performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Absent of any recent and relevant past performance history, the Offeror will be determined to have unknown past performance and the Offerors proposal will not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably on past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, unknown shall be considered acceptable.

The U.S. Government is not required to interview all POCs identified by the Offeror. It is the responsibility of the Offeror to provide complete past performance information and thorough explanations as required by Section L. The U.S. Government is not obliged to make another request for the required information.

M.6. FACTOR IV – PRICE:

M.6.1. Using the Kwajalein Security Services Price Matrix each CLIN will be calculated by taking the number of days multiplied by the daily rate multiplied by the position quantity per sub-CLIN to arrive at a CLIN total for the Base Year and all Option Years.

The Matrix will then sum all CLINs to arrive at a total Base Year and Total Option Year

Price. The summary tab will then auto populate with the totals calculated for the Base

Year and Option Years. The Total Evaluated Price will be calculated by taking the sum of the Base Year and Option Years. The Total Evaluated Price is inclusive of the

Government-developed surrogate. Complete reliance will be placed on the Offeror’s

Price Matrix – Attachment 0004.

M.6.2. The total Evaluated price will be evaluated but will not be assigned a rating. The results of the price analysis and will also be used by the source selection authority

(SSA) to aid in assessing the Offeror's understanding of the scale and cost of the contract requirements.

M.6.3. The Summary tab of the Price Matrix contains formulas that will automatically populate the Total Price for the Base and Option Years. In addition, the Summary tab will also calculate the 6-month extension amount by multiplying the proposed Option

Year 4 total by 50%. The Price Matrix will sum the Base Year, Option Years 1 through

4, and the 6 month extension to arrive at the Total Evaluated Price.

M.6.4. The Total Evaluated Price will be evaluated utilizing the proposal analysis techniques IAW FAR 15.404-1.

M.6.5. Proposals will be reviewed to identify any Unbalanced Pricing. IAW 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.