Attachment_0007_(SECTION_M)_BASIS_FOR_AWARD.pdf

(Section M) BASIS FOR AWARD

The award will be made based on the FAR part 15.101-1 “Tradeoff Process”. The tradeoff process will permit tradeoffs among the specific evaluation factors and will allow award to other than the lowest priced Offeror or other than the highest rated Offeror. The best value is the expected outcome of the acquisition that, in the Government’s estimation, provides the greatest overall benefits in response to the requirements.

The award will be made based on the best overall (i.e., best value) proposal that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the following evaluation factors: Technical, Past Performance and Cost/Price. The order of importance is as follows:

The Technical Factor is significantly more important than the Past Performance Factor.

The Past Performance Factor is slightly more important than the Cost/Price Factor.

The Technical and Past Performance Factors, when combined, are significantly more important than Cost/Price Factor.

To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than "Acceptable" must be achieved for the Technical factor. A rating of no less than "Acceptable" must be achieved for all Technical Sub-Factors in order to receive an overall Technical factor rating of "Acceptable" or better.

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award without discussions with Offerors.

Therefore, the Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a Technical and Cost/Price standpoint.

Unclear proposals may not result in questions for clarifications. Proposals with an omission or unclear proposals may be evaluated to mean the contractor does not fully understand the requirements or understand what it takes to meet or exceed the requirements, regardless of the proposed cost and will be rated “Unacceptable” and found to be ineligible for award. The Government reserves the right to award with or without discussions.

NOTE: Offerors will be cautioned that the award may not necessarily be made to the lowest cost offered based on the order of importance stated above. Technical and Past

DRAFT

Performance Factors, when combined, are significantly more important than Cost/Price Factor.

B. FACTORS AND SUB-FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

The following evaluation factors and sub-factors will be used to evaluate each proposal: Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and sub-factors described below.

Factor 1: The Technical factor is further divided into the following sub-factors:

Sub-Factor 01 - Technical Capability Sub-Factor 02 - Technical Expertise Sub-Factor 03 - Management Approach Sub-Factor 04 - Quality Control Plan (QCP)

Each Sub-Factor will be rated individually; then, those Sub-Factor ratings will be rolled up into an overall Technical Factor rating.

Evaluation of the offeror’s proposal shall address each sub-factor as it applies to the Performance Work Statement (PWS). A detailed explanation of the criteria for the evaluation is set forth in the “Evaluation Approach”, Paragraph C of this section. During evaluations of each proposal, the Government will assign each sub-factor an adjectival rating and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the identified findings.

Factor 2: Past Performance: Each offeror’s past performance will be reviewed to determine relevancy and confidence assessment.

Factor 3: Cost/Price: The resulting award will be a Cost Plus Fixed Fee contract. Cost realism will be utilized in the evaluation of Cost Reimbursable efforts.

C. EVALUATION APPROACH

All proposals shall be subject to evaluation by the Source Selection Team (SST).

The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the Offeror’s proposal meets the requirements and provides the Government with assurances of successful performance.

The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether all of the PWS sections have been completely discussed, considered and satisfied. Any form of “Parroting” will not be evaluated and will receive no further consideration.

Parroting is defined as copying, repeating, impersonating, mocking, reciting, or imitating mechanically without understanding.

The proposal will be evaluated to determine how well the Offeror completely understands the risks associated and demonstrates mitigation strategies in its approach that significantly reduce the risk of mission failure to the government. The evaluation approach for each Technical Sub-factor will be as follows:

Sub-Factor 1: Technical Capability – The technical approach shall clearly demonstrate the Offeror’s knowledge and understanding of the PWS requirement section 5. The Offeror’s technical approach will be evaluated to determine:

(a) Understanding of the Problem – The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which it demonstrates a clear understanding of all features involved in solving the problems and meeting the requirements presented in the task and the extent to which uncertainties are identified and resolutions proposed. The offerors proposed risk and risk mitigation plan will be evaluated for thoroughness and reasonableness.

(b) Feasibility of Approach - The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the offeror's methods and approach, provides the Government with a high level of confidence of successfully meeting the PWS requirements section 5.

(c) Completeness - The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether all of the requirements of the PWS have been completely considered, defined, and satisfied.

Sub-Factor 2: Technical Expertise - The proposal will be evaluated on how well the offeror can adequately demonstrate the offeror’s experience and expertise in supporting; CERDEC CP&I Directorate & its supporting customers, without “parroting”. Also, the offeror shall correlate their experience and expertise in supporting; research, development, engineering and business support of a variety of C4ISR systems and systems integration programs.

Sub-Factor 3: Management Approach – The Offeror’s Management Approach will be evaluated to ensure compliance with the proposal submission requirements. The Offeror’s Management Plan will be evaluated for completeness, reasonableness, and a thorough description of their organizational and management approach, approach for work distribution, management tools and systems intended for the successful performance of the contract. Proposed subcontractor work, organizational element responsibilities, management controls and feedback mechanisms will be evaluated based on reasonableness and thoroughness. Proposed joint ventures, teaming arrangements, strategic alliances, or other business arrangements will be evaluated for relevancy and thoroughness. Proposal assumptions, work distribution between Offeror and Teaming Partners/Subcontractors, and the process by which cost and schedule status will be reported will be evaluated. The Offeror’s proposed strategy to meeting challenges will be evaluated for thoroughness. The proposed staffing levels will be evaluated to determine whether the offeror meets the requirements of the PWS & Level of Effort (Attachment 0003). The Offeror’s organization and staffing chart will be evaluated for completeness, decision making abilities, coordination, and lines of control. The security requirement will be evaluated to determine that the offeror meets the requirements for clearances.

Sub-Factor 4: Quality Control Plan (QCP) – The Offeror’s QCP will be evaluated to ensure compliance with the proposal submission requirements. The Offeror’s QCP will be evaluated to determine how the offeror defines its performance objectives, how the offeror defines the standards to be met for evaluation, and how easily the Government can implement surveillance on the metrics proposed. Key metrics proposed will be evaluated on their logic, relevancy to the requirements, and sufficiency in its ability to measure performance.

The Technical Factor Ratings, excerpted below focus on the strengths, deficiencies, weaknesses, risks and uncertainties of the offeror's proposal. The color rating depicts how well the offeror’s proposal meets the Technical subfactor requirements.

TABLE 1 – COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Purple Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The

4. Past Performance Factor. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s record of past and current performance to ascertain the probability of successfully performing the required efforts of the PWS.

a. Evaluation of past performance shall be in accordance with this plan utilizing the forms and questionnaires set forth in Appendix D.

b. The Government will focus its inquiries on the offeror’s (and major subcontractor’s) record of performance as it relates to all solicitation requirements, including cost, schedule, performance and management of subcontractors. Major subcontractors are defined as members of an offeror’s overall team who are expected to perform ten (49) percent or more of the proposed effort. A significant achievement, problem, or lack of relevant data in any element of the work can become an important consideration in the evaluation process.

Therefore, offerors will be reminded to include the most recent and relevant efforts (within the past three years) in their proposal. Absent any recent and relevant past performance history or when the performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror will be assigned an “unknown confidence rating” and its proposal will not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably on past performance.

The Government may use data provided by the offeror in its proposal and data obtained from other sources, including data in Government files or data obtained through interviews with personnel familiar with the contractor and their current and past performance under Federal, State or Local government or commercial contracts for same or similar services as compared to the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) 541715 “Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (except Nanotechnology and Biotechnology)”. Data used in conducting performance risk assessments shall not extend past three years prior to the issue date of the RFP, but may include performance data generated during the past three years without regard to the contract award date.

c. Offerors shall submit all Government and/or commercial contracts for the prime offeror and each major subcontractor in performance or awarded during the past three years, from the issue date of this RFP, which are relevant to the efforts required by this RFP.

The Government may consider a wide array of information from a variety of sources, but is not compelled to rely on all of the information available.

proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths.

Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is unawardable.

d. The past performance factor considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract requirements. There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation: relevancy and performance confidence assessment.

(i) RELEVANCY: The first aspect of the past performance evaluation is to assess the offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. Relevancy is not separately rated; however, the following criteria will be used to establish what is relevant which shall include similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming.

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings Rating Definition 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.

(ii) QUALITY ASSESSMENT: Assess 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 Past Performance Questionnaires, interviews, CPARS, and other sources form the support and basis for this assessment.

(iii) PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT: The final step is for the team to arrive at a single consensus performance confidence assessment for the offeror, selecting the most appropriate rating from the chart below. This rating considers the assessed quality of the relevant/recent efforts gathered. Ensure the rationale for the conclusions reached are included.

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.

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.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral) 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.

3. Cost/Price Factor. The contract will be a Cost Plus Fixed Fee. The Government will evaluate the realism of the offerors’ proposed cost for the cost reimbursable effort through a probable cost analysis. The Government will evaluate all technically “Acceptable” cost reimbursable proposals, from the Offeror and any of its subcontractors, in accordance with FAR Part 15.404-1(b), (c) and (d) for realism and reasonableness of the Offeror’s proposed costs in relation to the Offeror’s specific technical approach. The Offeror’s proposed cost will be evaluated by determining what the Government predicts the Offeror’s approach would most probably cost the Government when the work performed under the contract is completed. To the degree that the Government's most probable cost estimate differs from the Offeror’s proposed cost, the proposed cost may be adjusted for the purposes of evaluation only.

Should the Government determine proposed prices are unrealistically low (an indication of “buy-in”), this will be considered a performance risk and un-awardable.

NOTE: In the event that the Offeror’s proposal is evaluated to be technically unacceptable, the Offeror’s cost proposal will not be evaluated and a most probable cost will not be determined.

The Government may use external sources of information in performing its cost evaluation including, but not limited to, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Department of Labor, Department of State, Salary.com, DCAA, DCMA or any other sources available. This DOES NOT preclude the Offeror from submitting supporting documentation for its proposed rates.