Attachment_0007_Evaluation_of_Offers_(Section_M)_9_Feb_2018.pdf

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY-PROCUREMENT SENSITIVE

Attachment 0007

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2 - EVALUATION – COMMERCIAL ITEMS

SECTION M – EVALUATION OF OFFERS – COMMERCIAL ITEMS

BASIS FOR AWARD

M1. EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS.

This acquisition will utilize a Lowest Priced Technically Acceptable (LPTA) Selection Approach authorized at Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.101-2. Proposals shall be evaluated in accordance with FAR 15.305(a), and, if discussions are to be conducted, establish the competitive range. The Government intends to award a single hybrid firm-fixed-price (FFP) and cost-reimbursable contract. The Periods of Performance (PoP) under this acquisition will consist of a 12-month base period with 4 (four) 12-month evaluated option periods and will include FAR Clause 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services for up to 6 additional months. Option to Extend Services for up to six additional months will be evaluated at time of award and will be one-half of the Offeror’s Total Evaluated Price for Option Period 4. The Government will include this pricing in the overall evaluation of prices. The total PoP will be up to five years and six months. The Government reserves the right to limit the Competitive Range for the purposes of efficiency; award without discussions; and make no award should no Offeror prove to submit an acceptable offer based on the criteria set forth in the solicitation.

M2. CORRECTION POTENTIAL OF PROPOSALS.

Proposals will be rated only on their content. Assumptions, preconceived ideas, and personal knowledge or opinions not supported by material provided in the proposal will not be considered or used as a basis for evaluation. The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential" of any proposal uncertainty. Uncertainty is 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). The judgment of such "correction potential" is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of an Offeror's proposal not meeting the Government's requirements is not considered correctable, the Offeror may be eliminated from the Competitive Range.

M3. NUMBER OF CONTRACT AWARDS.

M3.1. The Government reserves the right to award no contract at all, depending on the quality of the proposals, prices submitted, and the availability of funds.

M3.2. The Government intends to make one award.

M4. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY.

Each proposal will be evaluated against the solicitation criteria included below. The Government intends to make one award without discussions.

a) Technical Capability Factor. The two (2) Sub-factors of the Technical Proposal are considered of equal weight and will be evaluated as such. An Acceptable or Unacceptable rating will be assigned to each of the two (2) Sub-factors with supporting narrative substantiating the basis for each rating.

b) Past Performance Factor. Past Performance information will be evaluated and an Acceptable or Unacceptable rating will be assigned with supporting narrative substantiating the basis for the rating. In the event an Offeror has no recent, relevant past performance, a rating of Acceptable will be assigned.

c) Price Factor. Proposals receiving acceptable technical and past performance rating will be forwarded for price evaluation. Price will be evaluated in accordance with Factor III – Price (See Section M5.3).

M5. EVALUATION.

NOTE: Contractor certifications must be accurate and up-to-date at proposal submission time.

M5.1. - FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL CAPABILITY. The evaluation of the Technical Capability Factor proposal will consist of an evaluation of the following Sub-factors: 1. The Resources Plan and 2. Transition Plan. A rating of Acceptable or Unacceptable will be assigned to each sub-factor. A rating of Acceptable for each Sub-factor is required to receive an overall Technical Capability Factor rating of Acceptable.

Rating Description Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

M5.1.2. SUB-FACTOR 1.1 – RESOURCE PLAN. When evaluating the Offeror’s Resource Plan, the Government will determine if:

1. The Resource Plan sub-factor section includes information demonstrating the offeror has the ability to recruit and retain the necessary staffing levels needed to meet the requirements at PWS paragraph 8.0 and it sub-paragraphs to perform this mission.

2. The plan shall address how the required personnel performing this contract are fully vetted prior to employment.

3. The plan shall fully demonstrate a plan of operation to successfully accomplish the requirements of the PWS.

4. The plan shall include a recruitment/replacement plan which shall be specific, detailed, and complete enough to clearly and fully demonstrate an ability to acquire, train, and maintain staffing levels to meet the requirements of the PWS.

5. The plan will include procedures for backfilling positions to avoid vacancies and timelines to meet the requirements of 100% fill at the end of the transition period.

M5.1.3. SUB-FACTOR 1.2 – TRANSITION Plan

When evaluating the Offeror’s Transition Plan, the Government will determine if:

The Transition Plan shall detail how the offeror will prepare their company to become fully operational by the end of the transition period. The transition plan shall include schedules and milestones which support a transition period not exceeding 90 days and to be at full staffing capacity at the end of the transition period.

M5.2. – FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE

Past performance information is evaluated as a predictor of future contract performance. The U.S.

Government 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 U.S. Government may consider the currency, degree of relevance, source and context of the past performance information it evaluates as well as general trends in delivery and quality performance.

A significant achievement, problem, problem resolution, or lack of relevant data in any element can become an important consideration in the assessment process. A negative finding in any element may result in a lower past performance confidence assessment rating.

In conducting the past performance evaluation, the U.S. Government may use information obtained from other sources, or may use information with regard to other recent and relevant contracts performed by the Offeror of which it has knowledge, whether or not those contracts are disclosed to the U.S. Government by the Offeror.

M.5.2.1 Recent contracts are defined as contracts and orders where services/support provided, or are still being provided, anytime within three years of issuance of this solicitation. The U.S.

Government reserves the right to consider any significant past performance information that is recent and relevant after the solicitation closing date and prior to award.

M.5.2.2 Relevancy. The relevancy of the past performance information will be evaluated as follows:

Relevant: Present/past performance effort involved similar 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.5.2.3 In order to determine if a reference is relevant, the reference must meet the scope, magnitude of effort, and complexity requirements as detailed below.

M.5.2.3.1 In order to determine if a reference is similar in scope, the reference must have demonstrated similar experience identified in the PWS Attachment 0001.

M.5.2.3.2 In order to determine if a reference is similar in magnitude of effort and complexity, the Total Contract Value must meet or exceed $3,000,000.00.

M.5.2.4. Offeror’s Past Performance will be rated as follows:

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

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

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

Additional outside sources available to the U.S. Government, other than the Offerors proposal, may be utilized to evaluate past performance. Outside sources include, but are not limited to, data from Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System(FAPIIS), or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and the Defense Contract Management Agency.

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 obligated to make another request for the required information.

M5.3. - FACTOR 3: PRICE

The Government intends to make one award to the contractor that is determined to be the lowest priced/technically acceptable offer in accordance with the Request for Proposal evaluation criteria.

1. The Total Evaluated Price will be evaluated utilizing the proposal analysis techniques in accordance with FAR 15.404-1, but will not be assigned a rating.

2. The Total Proposed Price will be computed as follows, the Government will sum the CLINs proposed prices for each period, including the calculated Six-Month Option to Extend Services and Government provided surrogate, to develop a total by period. The totals for each period will be summed to develop the Total Proposed Price.

3. Cost realism analysis shall be performed on cost reimbursable CLINs, excluding CLIN 0006 for ODCs which is a Government provided surrogate, to determine the probable cost of performance for each Offeror. Cost realism analysis is the process of independently reviewing and evaluating specific elements of each offeror’s proposed cost estimate to determine whether the estimated proposed cost elements are realistic for the work to be performed; reflect a clear understanding of the requirements; and are consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the offeror’s technical proposal. The probable cost may differ from the proposed cost and should reflect the Government’s best estimate of the cost of any contract that is likely to result from the Offeror’s proposal.

4. In the event of the Government identifying a Probable Cost adjustment as determined in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(d) Cost Realism Analysis, the Probable Cost adjustment will be added to the Total Evaluated Price to develop the Total Evaluated Price.

5. Although the Option Years and Option to Extend Services are included in the Total Evaluated Price, evaluation of the options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

M6. AWARD DECISION.

Award will be made to the Offeror with the lowest priced, technically acceptable proposal that has acceptable past performance as well as a positive responsibility determination in accordance with FAR Part 9 and conformance to the terms and conditions of the RFP.