Attachment 0004-Evaluation Factors for Award-Section M_v2.pdf

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1 BEST VALUE CONTINUUM

Award will be made to the Offeror whose proposal offers the best overall value to the Government. This will be determined by using the trade-off process described in FAR 15, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Acquisition (DFARS), and the Army Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFARS) which allows the Government to consider award to other than the lowest price Offeror or other than the highest technically rated Offeror. The process permits tradeoffs among price and non-cost factors and allows the Government to accept other than the lowest priced proposal.

This solicitation is reserved for small business concerns. This solicitation will be considered a Small Business Set-Aside and competed amongst all small business types listed within FAR Part

19. Proposal submissions from large business will not be evaluated or considered for award.

The Government intends to award a non-personal services Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) base contract and Task Order (TO) #1 simultaneously to only one (1) awardee.

The award will be a Firm-Fixed-Price contract with Cost Reimbursable CLINs.

The base IDIQ contract will have a Period of Performance (PoP) of five (5) years consisting of five (5) 1-year Ordering Periods. The PoP for each Ordering Period will be determined at contract award. The TO #1 PoP will have a six-month PoP.

With respect to the Business Ethics, Conflicts of Interest and Compliance, and in accordance with (IAW) FAR 9.504(e), “The contracting officer shall award the contract to the apparent successful Offeror unless a conflict of interest is determined to exist that cannot be avoided, neutralized or mitigated. In cases where conflicts of interest cannot be avoided, neutralized, or mitigated satisfactorily, or waived when it is in the Government’s best interest to do so, the Contracting Officer shall preclude the Offeror from consideration for contract award.”

An Offeror should not assume that the Contracting Officer will independently obtain information necessary to evaluate its proposal. Therefore, Offerors should supply all information required to evaluate its proposal. Failure to provide the information required in order to evaluate a proposal could result in rejection of the proposal for being technically unacceptable or could otherwise negatively impact the Offeror’s rating.

M.2 TECHNICAL EVALUATION FACTORS (NON-PRICE FACTORS)

Evaluation Factor

Proposal Volume Number

Proposal Volume Description

Technical Approach Evaluation Factor

I Technical Volume – Base IDIQ

-Key Personnel -Management Plan -Staffing Plan

-Facilitation of Future Competitive Procurement of Software Maintenance/Sustainment Services

Technical Approach Evaluation Factor

II Technical Volume – Task Order 1

Past Performance III Past Performance Volume Price Evaluation Factor

IV Base IDIQ - Reference Price Matrix

Price Evaluation Factor

V Task Order 1 - Reference Price Matrix

Relative Importance of Evaluation Factors:

Volume I – Base IDIQ and Volume II – Task Order 1 is more important than Volume III – Past Performance. Volume I and II are equally important.

Volume I – Base IDIQ, Volume II – Task Order 1 and Volume III – Past Performance, when combined, are significantly more important than both price factors (Volume IV and V).

M.3 EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR EACH EVALUATION FACTOR

Combined Technical/Risk Rating for Volume I – Base IDIQ and Volume II – Task Order 1:

The combined technical/risk ratings includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings. An Offeror must receive an “Acceptable” or higher rating for the technical capability factor in order to be considered for award.

TABLE 2 – Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

Color 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.

Technical Ratings Definitions:

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 unawardable.

TABLE 3 - Technical Risk Ratings

Rating Description

Low Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor efforts 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.

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 Strength – is 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.

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

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

Deficiency – is either 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.

PHASE 1 of Evaluation – Go/No Go Criteria

This technical evaluation will be conducted in two phases. Phase 1 will be a Go/No Go evaluation which will consist of the Government validating that the Offeror has the required certifications and facility clearance for this requirement. Any Offeror that cannot provide the certifications and facility clearance will be rendered technically unacceptable and no further evaluation will be conducted on the Offeror’s proposal. The Offeror will not proceed to Phase 2 of the evaluation. Proposals that pass Phase 1 will proceed to Phase 2 of the evaluation and will be evaluated IAW the evaluation criteria specified in Section M of the solicitation. The required Go/No Go criteria is listed as follows:

1. The Offeror shall be certified as a Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) Level 3 provider or higher in any one of the CMMI domains (e.g. DEV, Services, Acquisition).

2. The Offeror shall have a current Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information

(TS/SCI) Facility Clearance with TS safeguarding capability with a minimum of two (2) cubic feet.

PHASE 2 of Evaluation – Evaluation Factors

The award will be made to the Offeror whose proposal represents the best value to the Government based on evaluation factors listed within the table above.

VOLUME I – BASE IDIQ

This factor involves the overall evaluation of the degree to which the Offeror addresses the technical requirements of the Base Contract PWS. The Contractor must demonstrate an understanding of the required and specified work as described in the Base PWS, and provides a clear description of how the offeror proposes to meet the PWS requirements.

The Government will also assess the Base Technical Volume on the degree to which the Offeror:

(1) Key Personnel: Overall knowledge, understanding and plan to fulfill the key personnel roles to support this requirement in full as well as meet the qualifications, experience, and certifications for these positions to perform all tasks in the PWS without any additional training beyond process familiarization. All key personnel employees must possess all prerequisites, skills, qualifications and certifications identified within the PWS Section 1.3.2.3. by the time of award. Key personnel are identified as a Program Manager, Information Assurance Specialist, Senior Software Developer, and a Senior Systems Engineer (Amazon Web Service Solutions). Resumes will be considered to represent the qualifications proposed and not an intention to provide a specific person.

(2) Management Plan: Provides a program management plan demonstrating how it proposes to accomplish the Base PWS work requirements through the seamless integration of its diverse organizational elements, personnel, and subcontractors to ensure quality and continuity of operations throughout the contract life cycle. In addition, the Management Plan should discuss how the Offeror plans to achieve the requirement identified in Section 5.9.2 of the Base PWS for SCIF and JWICS terminal access.

(3) Staffing Plan: Provides a staffing plan that indicates readiness of the Offeror’s proposed staff (all sources) for successful implementation and continued successful operations, considering the adequacy and effectiveness of the Offeror’s function-specific recruitment strategy. The Offeror’s proposed staffing plan shall provide knowledgeable, quality personnel in sufficient number in order to ensure quality base year performance starting on day one of operations.

(4) Facilitation of Future Competitive Procurement of Software

Maintenance/Sustainment Services: Provides an explanation for how its proposal facilitates competitive procurement of software maintenance/sustainment services from third parties (i.e., contractors other than the original manufacturer or developer) by the Government, using the technical data and software deliverables under this contract

VOLUME II – TASK ORDER 01

This task order will be awarded simultaneously with the base award. The Contractor must demonstrate an understanding of the required and specified work as described in the Task Order 1 PWS, and provides a clear description of how the Offeror proposes to meet the Task Order 1 PWS requirements.

The Government will assess the Task Order #1 Technical Volume as indicated below:

1. The Offeror’s technical approach of the essential requirements of Task Order 1 per Section 3.0 of the Task Order 1 PWS.

2. The Offeror’s written Transition Plan that details how a successful transition will be made within 60 calendar days of the task order award.

3. All required CDRL deliverables addressed in Technical Volume II.

4. The Offeror’s total proposed number of hours, FTE’s, and labor categories/ skill mix that will result in quality performance for this Task Order. The contractor is expected to offer staffing levels based on their best judgment as to how the tasks are to be performed in accordance with the Task Order PWS. The contractor shall provide all equipment, services, and labor necessary to perform the tasks unless the individual tasking documents explicitly state otherwise.

5. The Government will assess the substance and sufficiency of the Offeror’s description of a plan for system builds and an understanding of, and rationale for, the development approach (e.g. waterfall, agile, hybrid agile/waterfall, other), as well as the approach for obtaining user input to meet all requirements.

6. The Government will assess the substance and sufficiency of the Offeror’s proposed methodology to deliver software products developed in accordance with established software development standards and guidelines as prescribed by a minimum level 3 Capability Maturity Model (CMM), a minimum level 3 Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI), Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), and International Organization for Standardization (ISO). The Government will assess the degree to which the Offeror follows industry best practices related to configuration and change management policies developed in accordance with CMMI, IEEE and ISO.

The Government will assess the degree to which the Offeror:

(1) Provides a comprehensive and viable approach for the development of software including techniques and tools used; describes how the proposed software design elements will ensure effective delivery of the CASTLE KEEP system, lead to certifiable software delivery, and address all aspects of the software life cycle process, including design, development, verification, maintenance and operations, configuration management and quality assurance; and describes its software development organization and its methodology for project tracking, quality control and oversight.

(2) Describes its approach to the development of software, with specific discussion of their understanding of the elements comprising an operational environment and integration into the CASTLE KEEP Infrastructure and interfaces with other systems and the way their approach considers these elements to reduce risk and life cycle costs.

VOLUME III – PAST PERFORMANCE

The below criteria represents the basis for award for Volume III – Past Performance

Army Contracting Command - Rock Island (ACC-RI) will evaluate the Offeror’s and proposed significant subcontractor’s past performance information, which will be assessed to determine the likelihood that the prospective contract will be performed successfully.

The past performance factor considers each Offeror’s recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract requirements. There are three (3) aspects to the past performance evaluation and they are defined below:

(1) Recency – Past performance efforts will first be evaluated for recency. To be recent, some portion of the performance effort must have occurred within the last three years prior to the issue date of the solicitation. Among those performance efforts qualifying as recent, more weight will be given to those efforts occurring later in the period than those occurring earlier in the period.

(2) Relevancy – The government will next evaluate the relevancy of performance that qualified as recent. Relevancy will be categorized as Very Relevant, Relevant, or Somewhat Relevant. More relevant past performance will be given more weight than less relevant performance.

The following ratings will be used in assessing an Offeror’s Past Performance Relevancy:

Rating Description

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.

(3) Quality Assessment – The government assesses the overall quality of the Offeror’s past performance. Past Performance Questionnaires, interviews, Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), and other sources form the basis for this assessment.

After the Government has evaluated the Offerors’ past performance for recency, relevancy, and quality, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s specific content stated in Section L.3.3, and Organizational Structure Change stated in L.3.4. The Government will assign an overall Performance Confidence Assessment rating.

The following ratings will be used for the Performance Confidence Assessment:

TABLE 4 - Performance Confidence Assessment

Rating Description

Substantial Confidence

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

Satisfactory Confidence the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence the Government has a low expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence the Government has no expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral)

No recent/relevant/quality 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 Government will assign an Unknown Confidence/Neutral rating, meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably, to Offerors with no recent/relevant past performance record or if the Offeror’s performance record is not available or the information is inadequate such that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

Offerors are reminded that while the Government may elect to consider data obtained from other sources, the burden of demonstrating relevancy, recency, and quality of the past performance rests with the Offeror. Other sources available to the Government include, but are not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) and Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS).

M.4 PRICE FACTORS

VOLUME IV – PRICE BASE IDIQ & VOLUME V – PRICE TASK ORDER 01

1. The Government will evaluate an Offeror’s Total Evaluated Price as proposed on the Price Matrix. For evaluation purposes only, the Total Evaluated Price is the sum of the annual prices for all ordering periods for each CLIN, as illustrated in cell I20. The Price Factor will not be scored or rated. It should be noted that the monthly cost will not be used for evaluation purposes.

The Monthly Cost is the amount the Government will utilize when issuing a Task Order.

2. The Government will review the Total Evaluated Price using one or more of Price Analysis techniques in FAR 15.404-1.

3. As part of the price evaluation, the Government will review proposals to identify any Unbalanced Pricing. In accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g), Unbalanced Pricing, the Government may reject a proposal if the PCO determines the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

END OF SECTION M