Evaluation_Approach.pdf

A. BASIS FOR AWARD (Section M)

1. This is a best value source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)

15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement

(DFARS), and the Army Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFARS). Award will be made based on the best overall proposal that is determined to provide the greatest assessed value to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the three (3) evaluation factors: (I) Technical; (II) Past Performance and (III) Cost.

2. The Government intends to award a contract to the offeror whose Technical Proposal receives an adjectival rating of no less than “Acceptable” for Technical (to include all subfactors). In addition, the proposal must show a Past Performance of at least “Satisfactory Confidence” and “Relevant”. Offerors will be cautioned that the award may not necessarily be made to the lowest cost offered or the highest technically rated proposal due to the best value determination. The Technical Factor is of paramount importance and is more important than the Past Performance Factor, which is more important than the Cost Factor. However, as the difference between ratings diminish the relative importance of the cost increases.

3. All offerors will be evaluated using the evaluation criteria identified in Section M “Evaluation Approach” below. This is necessary in order to provide the best possible solution for the Warfighter. To be eligible for award, offerors must have submitted a fully responsive proposal and be selected based upon the evaluation criteria and the terms and conditions of this Solicitation. Proposals received that do not qualify as 8(a)

Certified Small Business concerns under NAICS 541330- Engineering Services will not be considered for award. It is imperative that offerors expressly provide that their proposal(s) is valid for a 100 day period after the date of the RFP response date.

4. This RFP includes a Performance Work Statement (PWS) for all possible types of requirements. For proposal purposes, offerors shall ensure their proposal conforms to both Section L, “Instructions to

Offerors” and Section M “Evaluation Approach”. The period of performance (PoP) for the contract will be one (1) year from the date of award with two (2) one (1) year option years.

5. At the Contracting Officer’s discretion, a competitive range may be established comprised of all of the most highly rated proposals based on the evaluation criteria, unless the range is further reduced for purposes of efficiency pursuant to FAR 15.306(c)(2).

B. FACTORS AND SUB-FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal. Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal provides the greatest assessed value to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors (Technical, Past Performance and Cost) as well as the subfactors described below.

1. FACTOR I – TECHNICAL

The Technical factor is further divided into the following subfactors:

a) Management Approach

b) Personnel

c) Understanding of Work to be Accomplished

Technical Evaluation Subfactor 1 (Management Approach) outweighs Subfactor 2 (Personnel) and Subfactor 3

(Understanding of Work to be Accomplished). Technical Evaluation Subfactor 2 is of more importance than

Subfactor 3.

2. FACTOR II – PAST PERFORMANCE

The offeror will be required to submit complete and accurate information as requested within Section L – Instruction to Offerors - Proposal Submission, section (ii) Volume II – Past Performance. Each offeror’s past performance will be reviewed to determine relevancy and confidence assessment.

3. FACTOR III– COST

The resulting award will be a contract using CPFF and Cost contract type. A cost reasonableness and cost realism analysis will be utilized in the evaluation of Cost Reimbursable efforts. The offeror will be required to submit complete and accurate information as requested within Section L – Instruction to Offerors - Proposal Submission, section (iii) Volume III – Cost.

C. EVALUATION APPROACH

All proposals shall be subject to evaluation by the Source Selection Board (SSB).

1. The overarching evaluation approach for all factors and subfactors is as follows:

a. Adequacy of Response. The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the offeror’s methods and approach have adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirements specified in the RFP. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which each requirement has been addressed in the proposal in accordance with the proposal submission section of the RFP.

b. Feasibility of Approach. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the proposed approach is workable and the results achievable. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which successful performance is contingent upon proven devices and techniques. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the offeror is expected to be able to successfully complete the proposed tasks and technical requirements within the required schedule.

2. The Technical Factors and Sub-Factors.

The SSEB will conduct a structured evaluation that examines an offeror’s ability to understand and perform the

Government’s requirement; there are three (3) Evaluation factors: (I) Technical; (II) Past Performance; and (III)

Cost. Evaluation of the offeror’s proposal shall address each Subfactor as it applies to the PWS. Technical

Evaluation Subfactor 1 (Management Approach) outweighs Subfactor 2 (Personnel) and Subfactor 3 (Understanding of Work to be Accomplished). Technical Evaluation Subfactor 2 is of more importance than Subfactor 3. All

Offerors will be cautioned that the award may not necessarily be made to the lowest cost proposed or the highest technically rated proposal due to the tradeoff determination. At the Source Selection Authority’s discretion, award may be made to a technically superior proposal that is higher-rated and higher-priced. The Technical Factor is of paramount importance and is more important than the Past Performance factor, which is more important than the

Cost factor. However, as the difference between ratings diminish the relative importance of the cost increases. At the

Source Selection Authority’s discretion, a competitive range may be established comprised of all of the most highly rated proposals based on the evaluation criteria, unless the range is further reduced for purposes of efficiency pursuant to FAR 15.306(c)(2). The final award determination will be based on the greatest assessed value to the

Government. The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal.

Subfactor 1: Management Approach. This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s management controls. The evaluation will focus on the offeror’s intended plan for managing the overall contract effort and shall be evaluated using the four

(4) following elements which are of equal importance:

I. Corporate Management Structure and Approach – The offeror’s corporate structure assures control over performance and personnel at the place of performance.

II. Communications – The proposed channels of communication between the Government and offeror, includes but is not limited to communications with the offeror’s on-site Program Manager, allows for timely resolution of problems.

III. Internal Controls –The internal management controls proposed by the offeror are clearly described and effective. The internal management controls proposed clearly describe data systems, procedures, techniques, and tracking systems that will support management of the contract to include financial reporting. The offeror demonstrates their ability to manage the day-to-day operations of the work and services as set forth in the PWS and includes examples from most recent and relevant efforts (within the past three (3) years).

IV. Adequacy of Work Force - The offeror’s proposal includes a plan for corrective action of under-performing personnel.

Subfactor 2: Personnel. This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s proposed personnel. The evaluation will focus on the offeror’s recruitment, retention, and identification of program management personnel. This subfactor will be evaluated using the three (3) following elements which are of equal importance:

I. Recruitment Plan – The proposed personnel management plan clearly details the offeror’s recruitment strategies and experience for identifying, recruiting, vetting, preparing, hiring, and onboarding staff with the appropriate background, knowledge, skills/expertise necessary to meet the requirements established in the

PWS. The offeror describes at least one (1) but no more than three (3) examples of effective use of their recruitment plan, one (1) of which should include clearly detailing each stage of their recruitment and selection process used to recruit the program manager.

II. Retention Plan- The proposed personnel management plan clearly details the offeror’s retention strategies and experience for assuring both incumbent and future hires will maintain and develop their current knowledge and skills in the disciplines required by the PWS. The offeror’s proposed retention plan addresses. The proposed retention plan is effective in assuring the offeror’s retention program fosters a stable workforce and maintains low employee turnover rates.

III. Recentness of Experience- The proposed labor categories have the current knowledge, skills, and educational requirements required by the PWS. The Government will review the resumes and professional reference for the labor categories to include education, skills, certification, and evidence of a current

Department of Defense (DoD) clearance (as required by the PWS).

Subfactor 3: Understanding of Work to be Accomplished. This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s understanding of the work to be accomplished. The evaluation will focus on the offeror’s grasp and understanding of the methods and techniques required to perform in the technical areas set forth in the PWS. This subfactor will be evaluated using the three (3) following elements which are of equal importance:

I. Completeness and Accuracy - The proposal indicates an adequate understanding of the technical areas and contractor responsibilities set forth in the PWS. The proposal reflects the Contractor’s required actions to successfully complete all areas of the PWS.

II. Clarity – The proposal is clearly worded and unambiguous.

III. Soundness of Approach – The proposal describes accepted practices and demonstrates processes and procedures used to meet the requirements of the PWS.

The Technical Factor Rating will be expressed as an adjectival assessment of Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal or Unacceptable. The components of each subfactor will be assessed for significant strengths, strengths, significant weaknesses, weaknesses, deficiencies, risks, and uncertainties. Each subfactor will be assigned an adjectival rating of Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal, or Unacceptable based upon these collective findings.

The compilation of these subfactor adjectival ratings will form the basis of the factor rating. 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 the offeror’s proposal meets the Technical subfactor requirements.

TABLE 1 – COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

Color Rating Description

3. FACTOR II & SUBFACTORS – PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION APPROACH

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. The following approach will be taken in the evaluation of past performance:

(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 (to include Major Subcontractors and Joint

Venture Partners) 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 (10) percent or more of the proposed effort. In the case of a Joint Venture, the Government will consider the relevant experience and past performance history of the stated primary joint venture (if a primary joint venture partner is assigned) and will evaluate the individual venture partners of the proposed joint venture that are expected to perform a meaningful role

(ten (10) percent or more of the proposed effort) in evaluating the past performance. 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 (3) 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 under the same North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) 541330 -

Engineering Services or other related NAICS codes similar in complexity and scope to the efforts required by this RFP. Data used in conducting performance risk assessments shall not extend past three (3) years

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 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.

prior to the issue date of the RFP, but may include performance data generated during the past three (3) years without regard to the contract award date.

(c) Offerors shall submit the first page of Government and/or commercial contracts for the prime offeror, major Subcontractor (s), and Joint Venture Partner in performance or awarded during the past three (3) years, from the issue date of this RFP, which are relevant to the efforts required by this RFP. The offeror shall provide past performance information on a minimum of three (3) and no more than five (5) contracts of a similar nature. 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.

(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, Contracting Performance Assessment Reporting

System (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.

4. FACTOR III & SUBFACTORS – COST EVALUATION APPROACH

The intention of the Government is to award a contract utilizing a CPFF and COST contract type. The Government will not award a contract to an offeror whose proposed rates are determined to be unreasonable or unrealistic. The

Government will evaluate cost reasonableness for this effort on the basis of the competitive offerers received in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b)(2). The Government will evaluate cost realism of the offerors’ proposal in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(d) to determine the probable cost of performance. In determining the evaluated cost for the cost realism analysis, the Government’s determined probable cost will be added to the offerors’ proposed cost-reimbursable effort to obtain the total evaluated price. The probable cost may differ from the proposed and should reflect the Government’s best estimate of the cost of any contract that is most likely to result from the offeror’s proposal. If the Government evaluated cost is less than the proposed, the proposed becomes the probable cost. The base program and all option years shall be included in the cost/price calculation. Should the Government determine proposed cost are unrealistically low (an indication of “buy-in”), this will be considered a performance risk.

Cost Reimbursable Requirements:

1) Probable Cost is the Government’s estimation of the cost of completing the contract using the offeror’s technical and management approaches, adjusted by any additional cost to the Government, including use of the Government facilities and Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) requirements other than those specified in the PWS. If the evaluated total cost is less than the proposed, the proposed total cost becomes the recommended probable cost. In evaluating this area, the following criteria will be used:

(a) The offeror’s proposed rates, factors, and expenses will be examined to substantiate utilization of consistent forward-pricing procedures, i.e., negotiated forward-pricing rates, if applicable, or rates and factors contractors ordinarily utilize in proposals if no negotiated forward-pricing agreement exists. This includes indirect expense rates, projected rates, and projected expense pools.

(b) The rates and factors shall then be applied to the quantitative and qualitative analyses of the labor hours, travel, and other direct cost factors which shall be proposed to accomplish the required efforts for the base effort and all options.

(c) Probable cost shall include a consideration of the evaluated quantitative and qualitative proposal in relation to the costs proposed against that resource mix. Probable cost shall include a comparison of proposed rates with factors, as determined by the Government to be equitable. These factors may include proposed professional compensation plans and average salary/wage rates. The comparison serves as a basis for determining the amount of risk inherent in an offeror’s proposal.

(d) The offeror shall ensure that a complete breakdown of costs is provided by major subcontractors and joint venture partners. Major subcontractors and joint venture partners are defined as members of an offeror’s overall team who are expected to perform ten (10) percent or more of the proposed effort. A complete evaluation of probable cost will be performed in the same manner as the offeror’s as defined in paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and this paragraph.

(e) For evaluation purposes only, in determining probable cost for options in the out-years, wage rates shall be escalated three (3) percent per year. However, if the offeror substantiates higher wage rates and justifies a different escalation factor, those wage/escalation factors will be utilized.

(g) Contractor support may be utilized to support proposal evaluation in a non-decision making capacity.