Attachment 0033 Basis for Award.pdf

BASIS FOR AWARD

Award will be made using the best value trade-off process authorized at FAR 15.101-1.

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and may award without discussions with

Offerors. If the Government determines discussions are necessary, a competitive range consisting of the most highly rated proposals may be established IAW FAR

15.306(c)(2). If determined necessary, the competitive range can be further limited for purposes of efficiency (see 52.215-1(f)(4)). The Government may engage in communications under FAR 15.306 (b) as necessary to determine which Offerors shall be included within the Competitive range. Therefore, the initial proposal shall contain the Offeror’s best terms from a Technical/Management, Past Performance, and Price standpoint. Any proposal revisions, if requested, shall be limited to the areas negotiated.

Factor Order of Importance:

The relative order of importance assigned to the evaluation factors are:

Technical/Management is more important than Past Performance; Past Performance is more important than Small Business, Price and the three non-price factors when combined are significantly more important than Price.

Technical /Management Subfactor Order of Importance: Subfactor one is more important than Subfactor two, Subfactor two is more important than Subfactor three.

The Government reserves the right to make an award to other than the low price offeror.

To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than Acceptable must be achieved for the Technical/Management Factor. An award will not be made to any offeror that receives a deficiency in any Factor.

All contract award decisions will be determined based upon the evaluation of each offeror's complete proposal against the evaluation criteria.

Definitions The following definitions will be used in the evaluation and in conjunction with the ratings provided below.

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

Government during contract performance.

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

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

https://www.acquisition.gov/far/part-52#FAR_52_215_1

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

Uncertainty. Any aspect of a non-cost/price factor proposal for which the intent of the offeror 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).

Adverse Past Performance. Past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation.

FACTOR 1 – TECHNICAL/MANAGEMENT – Volume 1

The Government will evaluate Offerors’ Technical/ Management submissions using the adjectival rating scheme depicted below. The combined Technical/Management Risk Rating listed includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining the technical rating and focuses on the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies of the Offerors proposal. The Government will evaluate Offerors’ Technical/Management submissions in accordance with the requirements set forth in the RFP, utilizing the adjectival ratings shown below:

Table 1– Combined Technical/Management Factor Ratings Technical/Management Factor Rating Definitions.

Adjectival Rating Description

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

The Technical/Management Factor shall use the Table 1– Technical/Management Ratings. The Technical/Management Factor evaluation will arrive at a single Factor rating. The Technical/Management evaluators will only be provided the redacted version of the proposal submitted.

Technical/Management Approach

Subfactor One – Transition Plan

Proposal demonstrates an understanding of the transition tasks. Provides an approach that utilizes a system and staffing approach that is efficient in completion of tasks.

Provides logical transition staffing approach that will accomplish the transition in the timeline for each requirement in the PWS. Provides a sound timeline for execution that supports the requirements in the PWS.

Subfactor Two: Technical/Management Approach:

The Government will evaluate the proposal to ensure that all requirements are included to ensure a thorough understanding and sound approach for both the AESD and AESMP capabilities. Offeror’s proposal will also be evaluated for a logical and effective technical approach that provides quality services that are responsive in the execution of the requirements. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Management approach and proposed organizational structure for efficiency and to ensure compliance with Key Personnel criteria included in the PWS Appendix D.

Subfactor Three: Technical Challenge:

The Government will confirm evaluator access to the environment configured to respond to the technical challenge.

Each offeror’s system will be tested with the same use cases as indicated in Attachment 0027 Use Case Buildup. Evaluators will enter tickets based upon the data provided in Attachment 0027 Use Case Buildup as users and process the use case as licensed users. Each offeror’s demonstration will be reviewed for the system demonstration, evaluators will review dashboards, and review of underlying foundation data to include configuration of service, location, and organizational hierarchies. The entire system demonstration will be evaluated for ease of use, flexibility, operational effectiveness, and for alignment with AESMF.

The written proposal will be evaluated to ensure offeror has demonstrated comprehension of the size and complexity of the Army’s technical challenges and provides an effective approach to mitigate those challenges.

FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE

Past Performance Factor Rating Definitions. The Government will evaluate Offerors’ Past Performance submissions in accordance with the requirements set forth in the RFP, utilizing the adjectival ratings shown below for Relevancy and Performance Confidence.

Past Performance will be rated for recent and relevancy criteria. If the submitted PPQ is determined to meet recent and relevancy, it will be reviewed and ratings combined to establish one performance confidence assessment rating. The Government reserves the right to consider any past performance meeting recent and relevancy, provided outside of the offeror’s proposal submission, prior to award.

RECENT DEFINITION: Recent contracts and/or task orders are defined as IT services performed, or still being performed, within the last Five (5) years.

RELEVANT DEFINITION: Relevant performance means at least one of the submitted references includes obtaining an authority to operate (ATO) using the Risk Management Framework (RMF) for a cloud-based solution. The remaining two references must be of relevant size to the AESMP procurement and utilize more than 80 agents on shift providing I.T. service desk support.

The following ratings will be assigned to determine relevancy.

Table 2

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Adjectival Rating Description

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities as this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities as this solicitation requires.

Somewhat

Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities as this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities as this solicitation requires.

There is no separate quality assessment rating; rather, the performance confidence assessment rating will be based on the Offeror’s overall record of recent, relevancy, and quality of performance as follows:

Table 3

Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings

Adjectival 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 be able to perform the required effort successfully.

FACTOR 3 –Small Business – Volume 4

Small Business Participation

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

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

Small Business (SB) __23_% Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) _5__% Women Owned Small Business (WOSB) _5_% HUBZone-Certified Small Business (HUBZone) _3_% Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB) _3_% Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) _3_%

The Offeror’s proposed percentage of participation (goals) identified in the Small Business Participation Plan Attachment 0005 will be evaluated against the Government’s Goal for each socio-economic category. The Government will compare the Offeror’s proposed percentage of participation for each category to the Government’s goal. 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.

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 performed 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.

For Other than Small Businesses: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s compliance with reporting requirements on Individual Subcontracting Reports (ISRs) or Summary Subcontract Reports (SSRs) and achievements on each goal stated within the subcontracting plan, (as reported on each ISR, commercial subcontracting plan, or SSR) for those recent contracts under which it was required. If the Offeror has no historical information, the proposal will be evaluated without regard to this paragraph.

Small Business Rating: In performing the small business evaluation, evaluators shall apply the following rating scheme:

FACTOR 4 –PRICE

The total evaluated price will include all Service lines as well as the Government Provided Incidentals amount for the base and all option periods. If an offeror fails to submit firm fixed prices for all lines indicated within the price matrix, its proposal may be considered unacceptable and the Government may reject the proposal.

Price Competition will primarily be used to determine price reasonableness. Additional price analysis techniques IAW FAR 15.404-1(b) may be used as determined necessary by the procuring contracting officer. If an offeror's proposed price(s) cannot be determined fair and reasonable, the USG reserves the right in accordance with FAR 15.403-3 to request data other than certified cost or pricing data to determine a fair and reasonable price. Price realism analysis will not be used to evaluate submitted prices As part of the price 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.

TABLE 4 – Small Business Ratings

Rating Description

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

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

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

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

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.