A07_-_Section_M_(Evaluation_Approach).docx

Section M – Evaluation Approach

A. BASIS FOR AWARD

1. This is a total 8(a) small business set-aside acquisition for a Single Award IDIQ CPFF contract and Task Order (TO) 0001 that is anticipated to be issued concurrently. This is a best value trade-off 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 best value trade-off to the Government with appropriate consideration given to the following three (3) evaluation factors: (I) Technical; (II) Past Performance; and (III) Cost. The Technical Factor is of paramount importance and is more important than the Past Performance Factor, which is slightly more important than the Cost Factor. All non-cost evaluation factors, when combined, are significantly more important than cost. Offerors are thus cautioned that award may not necessarily be made to the lowest cost offered. Notwithstanding the relative order of importance of the Evaluation Areas, Cost/ Price may be the controlling factor when: Proposals are otherwise considered approximately equal in non-cost/price areas; or an otherwise superior proposal is unaffordable; or the advantages of a higher rated, higher cost/price proposal are not considered to be worth the cost/price premium.

2. It is the intention of the Government to award a single award IDIQ CPFF contract with a ceiling up to $24,769,516.56. In addition, the Government anticipates TO 0001 will be issued concurrently with the base award.

3. The ordering period for the IDIQ contract will be five (5) years from the date of award. The period of performance for Task Order 0001 is a one year base period and two (2), one-year option periods.

4. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and make award without discussions. If discussions are to be conducted, a competitive range will be established and comprised of all of the most highly rated proposals (unless the range is further reduced for purposes of efficiency pursuant to FAR 15.306(c)(2)) based on the evaluation criteria identified within Section M of this Request for Proposal (RFP). After completion of discussions with each offeror in the competitive range (if conducted) and in accordance with FAR 15.307(b), all offerors in the competitive range will be allowed a specified period to submit Final Proposal Revisions.

5. The RFP includes a Basic PWS, to include Attachment – Labor Categories, as well as a TO 0001 PWS. Offerors must be able to perform all areas of the Basic PWS to be eligible for award. It is imperative that offerors expressly provide that their proposal(s) is valid for a 90 day period after the date of the RFP response date.

6. 8(a) small businesses must be eligible pursuant to FAR Part 19. Proposals received from offerors that do not qualify as small business concerns under the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) 541990 (size standard $15.0M) shall not be considered for the RFP. All small businesses will be evaluated using the same evaluation criteria identified in Section M of the RFP.

7. Offerors must hold an active TOP SECRET facility clearance at time of award.

8. The Solicitation will close at 11:59 AM ET on 3 December 2018. No proposals will be accepted after that time. If the Offeror experiences technical difficulties when submitting their proposal, the Contracting Office should be notified in writing prior to the Solicitation closing for assistance.

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 offerors whose proposals are determined to provide the best value to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below.

Factor 1: Technical The Technical factor is further divided into the following subfactors:

a. Understanding of Work to be Accomplished

b. Management and Personnel

c. Onboarding and Assimilation Approach

Technical Evaluation Subfactor (a) (Understanding of Work to be Accomplished) slightly outweighs Subfactor (b) (Management and Personnel). Subfactor (b) (Management and Personnel) outweighs Subfactor (c) (Onboarding and Assimilation Approach). Technical Evaluation Subfactors (b) and (c), when combined, outweigh Subfactor (a).

Evaluation of the offeror’s proposal will address each subfactor as it applies to the Base and Task Order 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 subfactor an adjectival rating and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the identified findings.

Factor 2: 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.

Factor 3: Cost The resulting award will be an IDIQ contract using CPFF contract type. A cost reasonableness and cost realism analysis will be utilized in the evaluation of these efforts as detailed in section C.3 below. 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 Evaluation Board (SSEB). 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 Basic PWS and TO 0001 PWS. Technical Evaluation Subfactor (a) (Understanding of Work to be Accomplished) slightly outweighs Subfactor (b) (Management and Personnel). Technical Evaluation Subfactor (b) outweighs Subfactor (c). Technical Evaluation Subfactors (b) and (c), when combined, outweigh Subfactor (a).

All Offerors will be cautioned that the award may not be made to the lowest cost offered or the highest technically rated proposal due to the tradeoff determination. The Technical Factor is of paramount importance and is more important than the Past Performance Factor, which is slightly more important than the Cost Factor. All non-cost evaluation factors, when combined, are significantly more important than cost. Notwithstanding the relative order of importance of the Evaluation Areas, Cost/ Price may be the controlling factor when: Proposals are otherwise considered approximately equal in non-cost/price areas; or an otherwise superior proposal is unaffordable; or the advantages of a higher rated, higher cost/price proposal are not considered to be worth the cost/price premium. 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.

OVERARCHING EVALUATION APPROACH –ALL FACTORS AND SUB-FACTORS:

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.

1. TECHNICAL EVALUATION APPROACH

FACTOR I & SUBFACTORS –

Subfactor (a): Understanding of Work to be Accomplished. Offeror’s understanding of the work to be performed set forth in the Basic PWS and TO 0001 PWS. Offeror’s grasp and understanding of the methods and techniques required to perform in the technical areas set forth in the Basic PWS and First Task Order. This subfactor has three (3) elements:

(i) Completeness and Accuracy - The proposal indicates a complete understanding of the technical areas and contractor responsibilities set forth in the Basic PWS and TO 0001 PWS. The proposal reflects the Contractor’s required actions to successfully complete all areas of the Basic PWS and TO 0001 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 Basic PWS and TO 0001 PWS.

Subfactor (b): Management & Personnel. This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s proposed management and personnel structure. The Management Plan shall address management, supervision and administration plans and processes to effectively manage performance and personnel at all task locations and across all Task Orders. The management plan should describe how the offeror will provide direct supervision of all their contracting employees (to include Major Subcontractors, Joint Venture agreements, and DoD Army Mentor Protégé agreements), avoid the appearance of inherently governmental functions and personal services, and successfully accomplish all tasks assigned to contractor employees.

This subfactor will be evaluated using the five (5) following elements, which are of equal importance:

(i) Contract/Program Management Structure and Approach – The offeror clearly describes a contract and management structure that provides the necessary control, management and supervision over personnel at each place of performance. Sufficient details are provided to explain the roles and responsibilities of the necessary proposed key personnel, which may include an appropriate mix of program managers (PMs), Assistant PMs, Site Leads, Team Leads, etc. The approach should describe how the management structure and processes will result in improved efficiency and quality of service.

(ii) Communications – The offeror clearly describes channels of communication between the Government and offeror to provide for efficient and timely resolution of contract performance issues.

(iii) Internal Controls – The offeror clearly describes internal management control mechanisms to avoid the appearance of inherently governmental functions and personal services. The offeror demonstrates their ability to manage the day-to-day operations of the work and services as set forth in the Basic PWS and Task Order 1. The description should include details on data systems, procedures, techniques, and task order tracking systems that will support management of the contract to include financial reporting.

(iv) Adequacy of Work Force - The offeror clearly describes the capability to respond to fluctuating workloads (e.g. ramping up/ramping down, turnover, surges and decreases) in requirements. The proposed personnel, to include Key Personnel, have the current knowledge, skills, and educational requirement in the disciplines required by the Basic PWS and TO 0001 with sufficient business acumen to work with world class scientists and engineers. The proposed personnel have performed similar types of work to that described in the Basic PWS and TO 0001 PWS. The Government will review the resumes and professional reference for all Key Personnel and TO 0001 proposed personnel to include education, skills, certification, security clearance information, and experience in the technical disciplines required by the Basic PWS and TO 0001 PWS.

(v) Availability - The proposed personnel that meet the requirements set forth in the Basic PWS and TO 0001, are available to support the contract effort. Letters of commitment shall be attached to resumes for all proposed personnel that are not currently direct employees of the prime contractor. The offeror shall ensure each letter, at a minimum, includes a statement of agreement to work for the company in the event the contract is awarded, RFP number, availability, length of commitment, associated direct labor category, description of services to be provided, clearance level and signature of offeror and offeree.

Subfactor (c): Onboarding and Assimilation Approach. This subfactor evaluates the offerors proposed methods of maintaining and progressing a well versed acquisition workforce to support ACD and ARL mission requirements. It is estimated that it will take up to two months from the date of hire of each new personnel added to the contract to receive full network access. This time is available for assimilation purposes and other onboarding activities to be accomplished by the Contractor at the assigned Government installation. The offerors shall detail how to use this time in a productive manner prior to Contractor Personnel receiving full network access. Beyond this onboarding period the offerors shall detail how to assimilate and progress the entire workforce on any new or changed agency specific polices.

(i) Method – The offeror shall clearly describe their delivery method, such as classroom style live instruction; one-on-one live, virtual on-demand, or some other delivery method.

(ii) Efficiency – The offeror shall describe how they intend to use the two month onboarding period to implement their approach to include the duration and frequency. In addition, describe how they intend to implement agency specific policy updates beyond this period once the personnel are executing a full workload.

(iii) Effectiveness- The offeror shall explain how the approach will provide a benefit to the Government in support of the requirements in the Base and Task Order 0001 PWS. The offeror shall explain how the new personnel will become fully operational and independently execute workloads.

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

more deficiencies. Proposal is unawardable.

Findings Definitions

Deficiency. A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. See FAR 15.001.

Strength. An aspect of an offerors’ 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. A significant strength appreciably enhances the merit of a proposal or appreciably increases the probability of successful contract performance.

Weakness. A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

Significant Weakness. A flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Uncertainty. 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).

2. 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 Basic PWS, Task Order 0001, and future Task Orders.

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 10 percent or more of the proposed effort. If a Joint Venture is not assigned, the Government will evaluate the prime offeror. A prime offeror is defined as the prime offeror that provides a signed Joint Venture agreement or an approved DoD Army Protégé agreement within their proposal. In the case of an assigned 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 (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 for Administrative Support Services under the same North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) 541990-Administrative Management and General Management Consulting 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 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) contracts, but no more than five (5), 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.

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 Customer (e.g. Government Laboratory), service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming.

(i)

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

(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

3. FACTOR III & SUBFACTORS – COST EVALUATION APPROACH

The contract will be an IDIQ contract utilizing a CPFF task order contract type. The Government will determine cost reasonableness for this effort on the basis of the competitive offers received for the task order proposals, in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b)(2). The Government will also evaluate cost realism of the offerors’ proposals for the basic IDIQ and Task Order 0001 in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(d) to determine the probable cost of performance. 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. The base program and all option years (if applicable), shall be included in the cost/price calculation. Should the Government determine proposed costs are unrealistically low (an indication of “buy-in”), this will be considered a performance risk.

Cost Realism 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. 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 shall include wage determinations included in this RFP as well as 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. 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. A complete evaluation of major Subcontractors’ 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 determination 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.

(f) The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total of all Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs) and Subline Item Number (SLIN) costs, including any potential options.

(g) A competitive range may be established based on the ratings of this factor.