EPCARTS_Section_M_DRAFT.pdf

EPCARTS SOLICITATION W9113M-17-R-0001, SECTION M DRAFT

For Official Use Only/Procurement Sensitive Information – See FAR 2.101/3.104

SECTION M – Evaluation Factors for Award

The following section identifies the criteria that will be utilized to evaluate all proposals submitted in response to the solicitation, the relative importance of the evaluation factors and subfactors, the rating methodology that will be employed be the evaluation, and the basis for selecting the offeror whose proposal represents the best value to the Government.

M-1 EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS

a. The evaluation criteria for this acquisition are delineated by factors and by subfactors. The three factors to be applied in the evaluation are Technical/Management, Past Performance, and Cost. The Technical/Management Factor is more important than the Past Performance factor which is more important than the Cost factor. All non-cost evaluation factors, when combined, are significantly more important than the Cost Factor.

(1) Technical/Management. The Technical/Management factor will be evaluated on three subfactors: (i) Technical Approach, (ii) Corporate Experience, and (iii) Management Plan. All subfactors are of equal importance. This factor will be evaluated based on the assessed strengths, weaknesses, risks and deficiencies of each offeror’s proposal. The evaluation of the Technical/Management factor/subfactors will employ the combined technical/risk rating methodology prescribed by Section 3.1.2.2 of the Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures dated 31 March 2016.

(2) Past Performance. The Past Performance factor does not include subfactors. Evaluation will consist of a performance confidence assessment to determine the offeror’s probability of successfully performing the EPCARTS effort based on the recent and relevant performance history of the proposed prime contractor and its subcontractors. The evaluation of the Past Performance Factor will employ the recency, relevancy, and quality assessment rating schemes prescribed by DoD Source Selection Procedures sections 3.1.3.1 and 3.1.3.3, respectively. Numerical weightings (i.e., assigning points or percentages to evaluation factors and subfactors) will not be utilized.

(3) Cost. The proposed cost will be evaluated for cost realism, but will not be rated. However, adjustments to proposed costs may be made to reflect the probable cost of performance based on risks identified through a realism analysis of the specific rates and factors proposed.

b. Proposals which are unreasonable, unrealistic, and/or unsupported may be judged to reflect a lack of understanding of the solicitation requirements and may indicate increased risk. Proposals found to contain significant risks or inconsistencies between the Technical and Cost proposals, may result in a reduced rating or even total exclusion from the contract award consideration.

c. Pursuant to FAR 52.215-1, the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award the contract without discussions with offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)); however, the right to conduct discussions is reserved if the Contracting Officer determines it necessary. In the event of discussions, award will not be made on initial offers and a competitive range comprised of the most highly rated proposals shall be established in accordance with FAR 15.306(c). The Contracting Officer may hold communications with offerors pursuant to FAR 15.306(b) prior to establishing the competitive range, as necessary. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals. If the Contracting Officer determines discussions are necessary, the will be conducted be conducted, as defined in FAR 15.306(d) and FAR 52.215-1(a), with all offerors included in the competitive range. Offerors whose proposals are not included in the competitive range will be so notified. At the conclusion of discussions, each offeror remaining in the competitive range will be given an opportunity to submit a revised proposal.

M-2 EVALUATION CRITERIA

EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS. The following criteria shall be utilized in the evaluation of all proposals:

a. FACTOR 1 – TECHNICAL/MANAGEMENT

The Government will assess the offeror’s ability to support all the technical/management requirements in the SOW in accordance with the subfactors set forth below. The evaluation will be based on the assessed strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, and associated risks of the proposal. The subfactors will be individually evaluated and rated, and then the subfactor ratings will be rolled up into an overall rating for the Technical/Management factor. The Technical/Management factor and its subfactors shall be rated in accordance with the rating scheme provided in Section M-4.a.

(1) Subfactor A -Technical Approach: The evaluation of this sub-factor will assess the offeror’s ability to provide successful technical solutions to all SOW requirements as evidenced by proposed approaches/methodologies and risk assessment for accomplishing each specific performance requirement set forth in the

SOW.

(A) The Government will evaluate the offeror’s ability to accomplish the functional requirements of the EPCARTS SOW as demonstrated by adequacy of the proposed team’s (prime, team member/subcontractor). The Government will evaluate the offeror’s optimal use of resources to meet all performance requirements, including providing evidence of qualified personnel to successfully execute the proposed solutions and support all SOW performance requirements

(B) The Government will evaluate the proposed labor resource mix with the planned technical solutions and its sufficiency for accomplishing the overall SOW requirements. The Government will examine the offeror’s cross-walk between the Government’s specified labor categories and the offeror’s internal labor categories in which the personnel are/will be classified.

(C) The Government will evaluate the offeror’s capability of working at remote locations, including OCONUS locations and in host nation environments.

(D) The Government will evaluate whether the Offeror demonstrates that it currently possesses, or has the ability to obtain and retain the necessary key personnel to perform the requirements in the SOW and that they meet the qualification requirements outlined in Section J, Attachment 01 (Labor Categories) through the evaluation of the resumes provided in the proposal. The Government places a high value on:

- Personnel who demonstrate specific experience and capability that is relevant (i.e., relevant to the position is be filled and the services to be provided) to performance under this contract

- Personnel whose qualifications exceed the minimum requirements specified in Section J, Attachment 01 Labor Categories

(2) Subfactor B - Corporate Experience: The Government will evaluate the offeror’s narrative outlining its corporate experience of up to five projects completed within the last five years that demonstrate specific corporate experience and capability that is relevant to performance under this contract. One of the completed projects must show the offeror’s experience performing environmental remediation services in a remote location, preferably OCONUS.

(A) The government will consider whether the offeror’s team (meaning collectively the prime contractor consisting of a company or cooperation (or partnering companies or cooperations, e.g., partnership, joint venture, etc.)) has the necessary breadth and depth of experience in relation to providing the same or similar services as those required in the SOW. Breadth of experience is defined as the offeror’s experience in performing the services. Depth of experience is defined as the magnitude, significance, and applicability/relevance of the offeror’s experience performing the services.

(B) Offerors will also be evaluated on their experience in working in remote locations.

(C) The Government will evaluate the offerors approach for completing the projects, including the labor mix used on projects.

(D) The Government will evaluate the corporate experience (not individual employee experience) of the subsidiary that is proposed to perform the work and will not consider experience of subordinate or affiliated offices that are not part of the execution team.

(3) Subfactor C - Management Approach: This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s ability to manage all requirements of the SOW.

(A) The Government will assess the adequacy of the offeror’s organizational structure and approach that will demonstrate an efficient delineation of responsibilities, clear lines of authority, and effective spans of control; a communication process that effectively flows program information throughout the organization as well as with the Government; and unique business practices that will ensure successful execution of the EPCARTS program. The evaluation will also focus on the adequacy of the offeror’s teaming/subcontract arrangements, to include formal and informal prime offeror joint-venture agreements as well as lead contractor/team member roles and responsibilities, and the effectiveness of the approach for managing team members/subcontractors within the overall organizational plan and mitigating related risks. The Government will evaluate the adequacy of the proposed team management approach for ensuring that the task manager maintains effective oversight and control over both prime contractor and subcontractor efforts.

(B) The evaluation will also assess the viability of the offeror’s proposed corporate mechanisms (practices, policies, procedures, and tools) for recruiting, retaining, and replenishing (when necessary) qualified personnel throughout the life of the contract, and the adequacy of the offeror’s personnel management approach for accommodating fluctuating workload, addressing and minimizing employee turnover, and growing the personnel resources required to successfully perform the SOW performance requirements.

(C) The Government will evaluate the adequacy of the offeror’s proposed risk management plan for the ability to identify and address specific risks that may impact this program and its successful implementation and long-term management. The plan must demonstrate the ability to identify specific quantitative and qualitative risks and effective mitigation strategies that demonstrate the clear ability to ensure uninterrupted performance at the required level of support.

(D) The Government will assess the adequacy of the offeror’s quality control plan and data management practices and procedures, emphasizing the comprehensiveness and effectiveness of proposed processes, procedures and inspection methods/records for ensuring that quality is maintained and all services delivered under the contract conform to specific task order requirements.

b. FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE

(1) The Government will conduct a performance confidence assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the EPCARTS requirements based on the relevancy and quality of the proposed team’s (prime offeror and proposed subcontractors) recent record of Federal Government contract performance. Recency, relevancy, and quality are not separately rated subfactors, but the Government’s integrated assessments thereof will be used to arrive at a single Performance Confidence Rating for the offeror.

(2) Recency is defined as contractual efforts performed within the past three years from the date of solicitation issuance. If the prime offeror is a newly-formed joint venture (formal or informal) with no performance record within the past three years as an entity, then the Government will assess the individual performance records of each joint venture participant.

(3) Relevancy is defined as contractual efforts that are similar to the solicited EPCARTS requirements in terms of scope (technical requirements), magnitude (dollar value, level of effort, and/or length of performance), and complexity. With respect to relevancy, past performance of greater relevancy will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance. The relevancy assessment will be based on the following levels:

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.

(4) The assessment of the quality of the proposed team’s recent and relevant performance record will be based on the overall quality of service, compliance of products, services, documents, and related deliverables to contract specification requirements, effectiveness of project management, timeliness of performance for services and products delivered, effectiveness in forecasting and controlling estimated costs, and commitment to customer satisfaction. The assessment will focus on how well the performance met contract requirements, the frequency of performance problems, and the effectiveness of corrective actions taken by the contractor. A significant achievement, problem, or lack of relevant data in any area of evaluation can become an important consideration in the past performance assessment. In the event that a source other than the proposal submission provides the Government with derogatory past performance information, the offeror will be given the opportunity to rebut or corroborate such information if such opportunity has not been previously afforded.

(5) In conducting the quality assessment, the Government reserves the right to use data provided by the offeror in its proposal, data obtained from the Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ) received in response to this solicitation; data obtained from interviews with cognizant Government personnel having knowledge of the offeror’s performance; data obtained from applicable contract files; and/or data obtained from other sources such as the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS); Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS); Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS); Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS); or other Governmental databases.

(c) FACTOR 3 – COST

(1) The Government shall conduct a cost realism analysis of each proposal to determine if fair and reasonable/realism in accordance with FAR 15.404-1 and the offerors’ understanding of the Scope of Work requirements and to determine the probable cost of performance for each offeror. The procedures at FAR 15.404-1(c) and

(d) will be utilized in the cost realism analysis of prime offeror and major subcontractor/team member estimated base labor cost rates and indirect cost rates applicable to labor, travel and other direct costs. The proposed rates, factors, and expenses shall be examined to substantiate utilization of consistent forward pricing procedures/rates, if applicable, or rates and factors ordinarily utilized by the offeror in proposals if no negotiated or recommended forwarding pricing rates exists. The examination may include DCAA audit/review, DCMA review, internal analysis of offerors’ current and/or historical cost data related to direct and indirect expenses, offerors’ projected expenses and expense pools, or any other means determined appropriate by the Government. Prime offeror and major subcontractor/team member proposed cost rates and cost factors will be adjusted to reflect any increases or reductions in cost elements to realistic levels based on the results of the cost realism analysis. It is anticipated that the analysis of non-major subcontractor/team member cost proposals will be limited to a review of major cost elements to determine whether they are realistic and reasonable utilizing one or more of the price analysis techniques specified at FAR 15.404-1(b). However, the Government reserves the right to employ the detailed cost analysis procedures of FAR 15.404-1(c) and (d) in the evaluation of non-major subcontractor/team member cost proposals if deemed appropriate by the Contracting Officer.

(2) The Contracting Officer will contact the offeror’s cognizant DCMA/DCAA office to verify evidence provided by the offeror of an adequate accounting system for accumulating and reporting incurred costs. If the offeror’s accounting system has not been audited to determine adequacy, the DCMA/DCAA will be requested to perform a pre-award survey of the accounting system. The offeror must have an adequate accounting system as determined by the DCMA/DCAA prior to award of a cost type contract.

(3) Prime offeror pass-through charges on subcontractor/team member labor costs shall be assessed to ensure the proposed rate does not exceed single digits as specified by the solicitation. An offeror’s proposal of a pass-through rate exceeding single digits may be deemed unreasonable. Fixed fee shall be assessed to ensure the proposed amount does not exceed the statutory limitation of FAR 15.404-4(c)(4)(i)(C).

The proposal of a fixed fee exceeding 10 percent may render the offeror ineligible for award.

(4) The offeror’s overall rate structure shall be assessed to ensure the appropriate buildup of labor category rate tables and the impacts of the realism analysis of individual cost elements.

(5) The probable rates and cost factors (and proposed fixed fee as applicable) shall be applied to the Government’s program-level estimated resource mix (distributed among all team members in proportion to the allocation presented in the prime offeror’s technical/management proposal) and the solicitation-specified travel and other direct cost factors to calculate the a Total Contract Probable Cost (TCPC) for the base and option ordering period. As such, the TCPC may differ from the proposed costs and shall reflect the Government’s best estimate of the cost of contract performance that is most likely to result from the offeror’s proposal. If the calculated TCPC is lower than the proposed cost for the Total Contract Price, then the proposed cost (excluding obvious mathematical errors and expressly unallowable costs) will be utilized as the TCPC.

(6) The offeror’s cost proposal will further be evaluated to determine whether the the overall price the Government expects to pay is fair and reasonableness pursuant to FAR 15.404-1(b)(2).

M-3 BASIS FOR AWARD

a. The Government will select for award the proposal that is most advantageous and represents the best overall value to the Government, considering the Technical/Management, Past Performance and Cost factors and their respective subfactors (as applicable). Therefore, the Government may select for award the offeror whose proposed cost is not the lowest, but whose Technical/Management and Past Performance proposal is sufficiently more advantageous to justify the payment of a higher cost. Conversely, the Government may select for award the offeror whose proposed cost is lower than other proposals that are not sufficiently more advantageous to justify the payment of a higher cost.

b. To arrive at the source selection decision, the SSA will consider the evaluation results of the source selection team, but will arrive at an independent decision and selection of the responsible offeror whose proposal represents the best value to the Government.

c. An offeror must be rated at least Acceptable in all factors and subfactors under the Technical/Management factor, must receive at least a Satisfactory performance confidence assessment in the Past Performance factor (or Unknown Confidence/Neutral assessment if no recent/relevant performance record is available or the performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned), and must present a Total Contract Probable Cost (TCPC) that is evaluated to be reasonable, realistic, and affordable in order to be eligible for contract award.

d. The prime offeror, major subcontractors/team members, and non-major subcontractors/team members proposed on a cost-reimbursement basis must possess an adequate accounting system in order to receive an award, and the contract will be awarded only to an offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with FAR 9.104, as supplemented. If the offeror is a joint venture, SBA approval of the joint venture agreement must be obtained in order for the offeror to be eligible for contract award.

e. The Government intends to award one contract as a result of this solicitation;

however, reserves the right not to award a contract depending on the quality of the proposal(s) submitted and the availability of funds.

M-4 EVALUATION RATING SCHEME

a. The Technical/Management factor, and its related subfactors, shall be rated in accordance with the scheme set forth below. These ratings include the consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, and/or deficiencies identified in the evaluation of Technical/Management Factor (and its respective subfactors) as described in Section M-2.a. Factor level ratings will be based on a “roll-up” of the subfactor ratings, subject to application of the specified subfactor criteria importance. A rating of Marginal or Unacceptable in any subfactor will render the factor rating as Marginal/Unacceptable (as applicable), regardless of the ratings assigned in the remaining subfactors.

TABLE 1 – 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.

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.

(b) The Past Performance factor shall be rated in accordance with the scheme set forth below. These ratings include the consideration of the relevancy and quality assessments identified in the evaluation of Factor 2 as described in Section M.2.b.(3).

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.

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 successfully perform the required effort.

M-5 EVALUATION OF OPTIONS

Pursuant to FAR 52.217-5, Evaluation of Options (Jul 1990), the Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total MPC for all options to the total MPC for the basic requirement. Evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

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.